Pre-Grant Publication Number: 20070198518
Please help the USPTO examine the application by evaluating the relevance of the publicly submitted prior art to the patent application.
Peer-to-Patent forwards the Top 10 most relevant prior art submissions and their annotations to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Review this prior art and click on the thumbs up (or down) to indicate whether this submission should be forwarded to the USPTO.
If you login then you can add an annotation by typing in the box at the bottom of the screen to comment on the relevance of the prior art to the claims of the patent application.
Review this prior art and click on the thumbs up (or down) to indicate whether this submission should be forwarded to the USPTO.
If you login then you can add an annotation by typing in the box at the bottom of the screen to comment on the relevance of the prior art to the claims of the patent application.
Prior Art Detail
Summary / Description
| Summary / Description | This earlier US patent application co-commits groups of unrelated transactions, as does the current application, though the prior art application does not cover the collaborator record but instead co-commits all transactions in the system based on a timer. |
Basic Information
| Type of Prior Art | Issued Patents - US |
| Country | United States of America |
| Patent/Application # | US20040010502A1 |
| Kind Code | United States (US) - Patent Appl. Publ. within the ... - A1 |
| Patentee Name | Bomfim, Joanes DePaula; Rothstein, Richard Stephen |
| Relevant Pages, Columns, or Lines | [0063], others |
| URL | http://www.freepatentsonline.co... |
| Filing Date | January 15, 2004 |
| Additional Information | |
Notes / To Do
| Notes | |
Excerpt
Excerpt An in-memory file system supports concurrent clients allowing multiple updates on the same record by more than 1 of the clients, between commits, while maintaining commit integrity over a defined interval of processing. Moreover, a computer system processing transactions includes client computers concurrently transmitting messages. The computer system also includes servers, in communication with the client computers, receiving the messages, and in-memory databases, each in-memory database corresponding, respectively, to at least one of the servers, in which the servers store the messages in records of the respective in-memory databases, and the in-memory databases allow multiple updates on the same record by more than 1 of the client computers, between commits, while maintaining commit integrity over a defined interval of processing.
[...]
If updating the record, for example, meets an abnormal end, then the in-memory database of the present invention backs out the update to the record, and backs out the updates to other records, since the most recent commit point. The commits of the in-memory database of the present invention are physical commits set at arbitrary time intervals of, for example, every 5 minutes. If there is a failure (an abnormal end), then transactions processed over the past 5 minutes, at most, would be re-processed. |
Relevance
Claims
1
A system, comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the memory stores program instructions executable by the one or more processors to implement a memory manager configured to:
coordinate memory access requests specifying data locations within the memory, wherein said coordinating comprises:
recording, within a collaborator record of a first shared data object in the memory, identifications of a set of two or more transactions that have each requested synchronization on the first shared data object;
in response to a commit request from a given transaction of the set, determining whether to commit or abort the given transaction based at least in part on transactional states of one or more other transactions of the set, wherein said determining comprises examining the collaborator record to identify the one or more other transactions of the set; and
committing or aborting the given transaction according to said determining.
Relevance
The prior art describes an in-memory database or file system, which if not identically described is at least analogous to the system and memory access elements of this claim. The prior art also co-commits (or co-aborts) a set of current transactions, determining whether to commit or abort based at least in part on the states of the transactions in the set. However, this prior art does not appear to cover the "collaborator record" of claim 1.
The prior art describes an in-memory database or file system, which if not identically described is at least analogous to the system and memory access elements of this claim. The prior art also co-commits (or co-aborts) a set of current transactions, determining whether to commit or abort based at least in part on the states of the transactions in the set. However, this prior art does not appear to cover the "collaborator record" of claim 1.
Claim Chart
All
3
The system as recited in Claim 1, wherein the coordinating further comprises:
in response to determining to commit the given transaction, determining to commit each other transaction of the set and committing each other transaction of the set; and
in response to determining to abort the given transaction, determining to abort each other transaction of the set and aborting each other transaction of the set.
Relevance
The prior art co-commits (or co-aborts) all current transactions, such that if one aborts, all do.
The prior art co-commits (or co-aborts) all current transactions, such that if one aborts, all do.
Claim Chart
All
