Over a million developers have joined DZone.
{{announcement.body}}
{{announcement.title}}

When a Race Condition is What You Want…

DZone's Guide to

When a Race Condition is What You Want…

· Java Zone ·
Free Resource

RavenDB vs MongoDB: Which is Better? This White Paper compares the two leading NoSQL Document Databases on 9 features to find out which is the best solution for your next project.  

I have an interesting situation that I am not sure how to resolve. We need to record the last request time for a RavenDB database. Now, this last request time is mostly used to show the user, and to decide when a database is idle, and can be shut down.

As such, it doesn’t have to be really accurate ( a skew of even a few seconds is just fine ). However, under load, there are many requests coming in (in the case presented to us, 4,000 concurrent requests), and they all need to update the last request.

Obviously, in such a scenario, we don’t really care about the actual value. But the question is, how do we deal with that? In particular, I want to avoid a situation where we do a lot of writes to the same value in an unprotected manner, mostly because it is likely to cause contentions between cores.

Any ideas?

It is actually fine for us to go slightly back (so thread A at time T+1 and thread B at time T+2 running concurrently, and the end result is T+1), which is why I said that a race is fine for us. But what I want to avoid is any form of locking / contention.

I wrote the following test code:

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        var threads = new List<Thread>();

        var holder = new Holder();

        var mre = new ManualResetEvent(false);

        for (int i = 0; i < 2500; i++)
        {
            var thread = new Thread(delegate()
            {
                mre.WaitOne();
                for (long j = 0; j < 500*1000; j++)
                {
                    holder.Now = j;
                }
            });
            thread.Start();
            threads.Add(thread);
        }

        mre.Set();

        threads.ForEach(t => t.Join());


        Console.WriteLine(holder.Now);
    }
}

public class Holder
{
    public long Now;
}

And it looks like it is doing what I want it to. This creates a lot of contention on the same value, but it is also giving me the right value. And again, the value of right here is very approximate. The problem is that I know how to write thread safe code, I’m not sure if this is a good way to go about doing this.

Note that this code (yes, even with 2,500 threads) runs quite fast, in under a second. Trying to use Interlocked.Exchange is drastically more expensive, and Interlocked.CompareExchange is even worse.

But it is just not sitting well with me.


Do you pay to use your database? What if your database paid you? Learn more with RavenDB.

Topics:

Published at DZone with permission of

Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.

{{ parent.title || parent.header.title}}

{{ parent.tldr }}

{{ parent.urlSource.name }}