Shared-memory vs multi-process #176
Replies: 3 comments
|
@AntoineC44: Hi, yup this has been done internally in a read-only fashion. It is not a common use-case though (only one user uses it this way). The way it is done is to spin up a master process that first populates the cache and then the child processes will perform read-only operations. |
0 replies
|
Hello @therealgymmy, thanks for the answer, yes this use case is probably less frequent. So the lib would not support concurrent read/write on the cache over several processes? Only write once from a master process then read from other processes? |
0 replies
|
Closing this discussion as it has been inactive. If this is still relevant, then please create a new discussion post and we will get back to you as soon as we can. Thank you! |
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Hello,
I spent some time reading both docs and source code, it seems it may work sharing a cache created by this lib over several processes (as opposed to the suggested default being to create and exploit it in a multi-threaded process). Does someone know if this is indeed possible?
Thanks,
Antoine
All reactions