Re: file lock unnecessary?

[email protected] (Greg Jetter)
Newsgroups perl.beginners.cgi
Organization Lazy Mountain Computers
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Wednesday April 25 2007 8:42 am, Varjü Tamás wrote:
> Dear Greg!
>
> The reason I did the test, and why I detailed the result is that I could
> not reproduce any of the nasty things which can happen without locking.
> I know that everyone suggests to use the lock, but following your
> argument the test should have had a different outcome.
>
> Any idea how to improve the test to realise potential data loss?  It
> would convince me beyond "to be on the safe side".
>
> Kanya

you example  I think features two processes accessing the same file , now  a 
typical web application  may have  2000 to 2 million processes going at the 
file at the same time ... example being some thing like a  search engine. 

To test  or produce  a race condition  or  over writing , put  the  script 
under a  real world load .

fork 20 or thirty instances of your script at the same time and let them  have 
a go at the file. then look at the results and see if  it's what you think it 
should be. bet it won't be :)


 If you are certain that  no more than 2 processes will ever  access the file 
then feel free to forgo file locking . I have personal seen this happen with 
as little as three processes accessing the same file... There is a reason 
everyone suggest using file locking it's because we have all "been their and 
done that". it's a common mistake new programmers make.

ask yourself "why do Data Base programs have  row locking ? " it's the same 
thing.

Greg
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.