In this, Michael Negard is the reason that many catastrophic system failures are often due to wrong things, for example There are now two lower threads in two thread deadlock thread pools, so the load increases on other threads their sudden possibility of deadlock, the server does not respond at all, because the thread bridge has ended, due to which Load balancer to other server (which The same code running) causes the removal of traffic, which is their the possibility of a sudden the whole farm increases Dedleks offline.
Most RDBMS servers detect deadlock and decide "locker" (one transaction has been canceled, the second can also continue). In contrast, in the C #, the lock statement will wait indefinitely for the acquisition of the lock.
You can call to request lock or timeout. If the wrong time is over and the lock can not be achieved, then it makes a false return. Some people have to keep a good syntax
So my question is, do you always get the locks using the timeout or not? And what does the timeline end up with a deadlock scenario?
I usually use timeouts here The biggest issue here is if the time limit is reached , The requesting operation is being aborted. This is clearly a priority for the deadlock. Although there is a big problem: if operation is important and you start aborting because something is worse, if your design is not sound, you can eliminate the agricultural problem described through this method (albeit Soft: your app will no longer work, but you have not lost control).
The main difference is that in fact you have control over here, but if threads start deadlocks, then you can not correct anything within your code after the problem starts.
Comments
Post a Comment