is providing mutual exclusion (ie. via spinlock mechanism) enough to ensure effective implementation of concurrency? Or do we have to explicitly implement some synchronization method as well?
I have need for a LinkedBlockingQueue but what I am passing primitives to it.My data rates for adding to the Queue are about 4ms or 256 data points per sec.The issue that I am having is the data start
I understand that the synchronized keyword is used to prevent multiple threads from accessing the same chunk of code (either a whole method or a block of synched code within a method) at the same time
I\'m in the process of writing a report for an assignment in which I implemented a concurrent multicore branch and bound algorithm using the STM package and there was an issue I\'ve come up against.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references,or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, a
I\'m trying to find the fastest possible and lock free solution for one producer-many consumers scenario. I assume that when dealing with only one producer and values can be lost in between we need to
We have a class in our codebase currently that uses the synchronized keyword at the method level to ensure data consistency in multithreaded operations.It looks something like this:
It is usually noted that simple database systems which does not have server (e.g. GDBM, SQLite, etc) are weaker for concurrent connections.
In this code example, the ExecutorService is used one and allowed to go out of scope. public static void main(String[] args)
I created a logging module which logs messages to a mysql db, the current code is located here: https://github.com/amiadogroup/mod_log_chat_mysql5/blob/master/src/mod_log_chat_mysql5.erl
加载中,请稍侯......