US 7,346,720 B2Grant

Systems and methods for managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource

Issue Date:2008-03-18

•17 Claims

•9 Drawing Sheets

Abstract

The systems and methods manage concurrent access requests to a shared resource. The systems and methods utilize an access management algorithm that permits multiple processes to concurrently obtain shared locks on the shared resource, but also limits access to only one process when an exclusive lock is granted. In doing so, the systems and methods avoid the problems of starvation and deadlock.

Metadata

Assignee

Isilon Systems, Inc.

Inventor

Neal T. Fachan

Application Information

Application Number:US 11/255,346

Filing Date:2005-10-21

Priority Date:2005-10-21

Art Unit:2111

Classifications

IPC:

G06F13/14G06F12/00G06F13/16

Patent Drawings (9 sheets)

Description

Reference to Related Applications

[0001] The present disclosure relates to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/255,817, titled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DISTRIBUTED SYSTEM SCANNING,” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/256,410, titled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING VARIABLE PROTECTION,” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/255,818, titled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MAINTAINING DISTRIBUTED DATA,” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/256,317, titled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING EXCITEMENT VALUES TO PREDICT FUTURE ACCESS TO RESOURCES,” and U.S. Patent Application No. titled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ACCESSING AND UPDATING DISTRIBUTED DATA,” each filed on Oct. 21, 2005 and each hereby incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.

Field of the Invention

[0002] The systems and methods of the present invention relate generally to the field of concurrent computer processing, and in particular to managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource.

Background

[0003] The proliferation of networked computers and increased processor speeds in the workplace, at home and over the internet have increased the need by users on a computer network to concurrently access shared resources. Commonly, two processes will need to access a shared resource at the same time. This problem can arise, for example, when some users wish to read from a shared resource on a data storage device while another user is requesting permission to write to that shared resource. In another example, the problem can arise with respect to a shared resource on a standalone machine or on shared resources accessed across several networks. Though shared resources presently permit many users to obtain shared locks concurrently, several limitations to resource access can arise when one or more users wish to concurrently obtain an exclusive lock.

[0004] One such limitation is that shared lock requests and exclusive lock requests must be mutually exclusive. For example, if one process obtains a shared lock to read data and another process concurrently obtains an exclusive lock to write data to the same data segment, it is possible that the first process will read erroneous or outdated data. A practical illustration of this problem occurs when two remote members of a jointly held bank account wish to concurrently check the balance of their account and subsequently withdraw the reported balance via an automated teller machine. Without a data storage system that provides for mutual exclusivity, the joint account holders may overdraw the account if both members decide to withdraw the balance.

[0005] Shared resources that employ mutually exclusive shared and exclusive locks encounter the problems of starvation and deadlock, both of which are well known to those skilled in the art. Starvation occurs when a process that requests an exclusive lock on a shared resource is denied access to that shared resource in order to fulfill the requirement of mutual exclusivity (e.g., another process already owns a shared lock). Normally, starvation ends when existing shared locks on the shared resource complete their operations and release their locks. However, when other processes subsequently obtain multiple shared locks on the shared resource, the process requesting an exclusive lock will be starved from the shared resource for as long as any shared lock owners exist. Starvation is undesirable because it can delay critical system updates and is inefficient.

[0006] Deadlock occurs when, due to mutual exclusion, a set of processes are waiting on another process in the set to execute. For example, if the set is comprised of processes P₀through P_nwherein P₀is waiting on P₁, P₁is waiting on P₂, P₂is waiting on P₃, . .and P_nis waiting on P₀, a deadlock has occurred because no process in the set can execute until the process it is waiting for executes. For example, this problem occurs when a process with a shared lock requests a recursive lock after another process has already requested an exclusive lock. In this situation, the original shared lock is waiting on the recursive lock, the recursive lock is waiting on the exclusive lock, and the exclusive lock is waiting on the original shared lock. Deadlock is undesirable because it requires one process in the set to be manually aborted and is inefficient.

[0007] Thus, a need exists for computer networks to accommodate shared and exclusive lock requests while satisfying the requirement of mutual exclusivity and avoiding the problems of starvation and deadlock.

[0008] One response has been to account for the number of processes that hold shared locks on a particular shared resource. This solution defers exclusive lock requests so long as a process holds a shared lock on the resource. This solution is inadequate because it does not account for processes with recursive locks on the resource. In failing to differentiate between first-time and recursive lock requests, a process waiting for an exclusive lock can be starved if first-time lock requests are perpetually granted and a process waiting for a recursive lock can cause deadlock if its recursive lock request is deferred.

[0009] Another response has been to individually account for the number of shared locks held by each process for each particular shared resource. While shared locks exist, processes waiting to obtain an exclusive lock are queued and permitted to write only when all preceding processes have terminated their shared locks; all subsequent shared lock requests are put to sleep and granted only after preceding exclusive locks terminate. This solution is inadequate because it is computationally expensive and results in excessive overhead when the number of potential concurrent processes and the number of shared resources are considered.

Summary

[0010] The systems and methods for managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource disclosed herein advantageously enable multiple processes to concurrently request exclusive and shared locks on the same shared resource. The disclosed access management system preserves mutual exclusivity for those processes that request exclusive locks on the shared resource while avoiding the problems of starvation and deadlock. Effectively, the access management system provides a compromise between processes waiting to obtain an exclusive lock and processes that require recursive locks to complete the execution of their operations. As a result, processes waiting to obtain an exclusive lock are not starved, and shared lock owners are granted recursive locks in order to avoid deadlock.

[0011] In one embodiment, the access management system advantageously uses three data structures: a global count, a per-process count, and an exclusive_waiting count. Using these structures, the system utilizes a dynamic method of accounting for the number of shared locks on the shared resource and the number of processes waiting for an exclusive lock on the shared resource. When no processes are waiting to obtain an exclusive lock, the access management system accounts for the number of shared locks on the shared resource in the global count, whether the shared locks are first-time or recursive locks, and all shared lock requests are granted. Upon an exclusive lock request, the exclusive_waiting count is adjusted accordingly and subsequent shared locks are accounted for in the per-process count, a process-specific data structure. In the event that the per-process count indicates that there are no shared locks, termination of subsequent shared locks is accounted for in the global count. After the global count indicates that no shared locks are present, the accounting transfers to the per-process count. At this point, the recursive locks are granted and any first-time locks are deferred. When the per-process count indicates that no shared locks exist, the shared locks have terminated, an exclusive lock is granted, and the exclusive_waiting count is adjusted accordingly.

[0012] In another embodiment, a method provides for managing concurrent access requests to a data segment. The method includes tracking shared lock requests from a plurality of processes in a first data structure when no exclusive waiter is present, wherein the first data structure tracks the total number of shared locks; tracking shared lock requests in a second data structure when an exclusive waiter is present and the total number of shared locks is greater than zero, wherein the second data structure tracks the number of shared locks held by each of the plurality of processes; tracking recursive shared lock requests in the second data structure when an exclusive waiter is present and the total number of shared locks is zero; and granting an exclusive lock to the exclusive waiter when the total number of shared locks is zero and the number of shared locks held by each of the plurality of processes is zero.

[0013] In another embodiment, a method provides for managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource. The method includes receiving a first plurality of shared requests; granting the first plurality of shared requests; tracking completion of the first plurality of shared requests; receiving an exclusive request; receiving a second plurality of shared requests before the first plurality of shared requests has been completed; granting the second plurality of shared requests; tracking completion of the second plurality of shared requests on a per-process basis; receiving a third plurality of shared requests after the first plurality of shared requests has been completed; determining whether each of the third plurality of shared requests is a recursive request; for each recursive request, granting the recursive request and tracking completion of the recursive request on a per-process basis; and after completion of the third plurality of shared requests and the recursive requests, granting the exclusive request

[0014] In yet another embodiment, a method provides for managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource, wherein a first at least one process has a shared lock on the shared resource. The method includes storing a representation of the number of a second at least one processes waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource in an exclusive waiting count, wherein the exclusive waiting count is a first data structure and the second at least one processes waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource are put to sleep; storing a representation of the number of first at least one processes that have a shared lock on the shared resource in a global count if the exclusive waiting count indicates that none of the, second at least one processes are waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource, wherein the global count is a second data structure; adjusting a per-process count when one of the first at least one processes obtains a shared lock on the shared resource if the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource, wherein the per-process count is a third data structure that stores a representation of the number of shared locks held by each of the first at least one processes; adjusting the per-process count when one of the first at least one processes terminates a shared lock on the shared resource if the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource and the global count indicates that at least one of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that the one of the first at least one processes does not hold a shared lock on the shared resource; adjusting the global count when at least one of the first at least one processes terminates a shared lock on the shared resource if the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource and the global count indicates that at least one of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that none of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource; and granting all shared lock requests from the first at least one processes if the global count indicates that at least one of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource.

[0015] In a further embodiment, an access management system manages concurrent access requests to a shared resource. The system comprises a shared resource and a processor module, wherein a first at least one process has a shared lock on the shared resource. The processor module is configured to receive requests from the first at least one processes for a shared lock on the shared resource; receive requests from a second at least one process for an exclusive lock on the shared resource; store a representation of the number of a second at least one processes waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource in an exclusive waiting count, wherein the exclusive waiting count is a first data structure and the second at least one processes waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource are put to sleep; store a representation of the number of the first at least one processes that have a shared lock on the shared resource in a global count if the exclusive waiting count indicates that none of the second at least one processes are waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the share resource, wherein the global count is a second data structure; adjust a per-process count when one of the first at least one processes obtains a shared lock on the shared resource if the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least on processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource, wherein the per-process count is a third data structure that stores a representation of the number of shared locks held by each of the first at least one processes; adjust the per-process count when one of the first at least one processes terminates a shared lock on the shared resource if the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource and the global count indicates that at least one of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that one of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource; adjust the global count when one of the first at least one processes terminates a shared lock on the shared resource if the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource and the global count indicates that at least one of the first at least processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that the one of the first at least one processes does not hold a shared lock on the shared resource; and grant all shared lock requests from the first at least one processes if the global count indicates that at least one of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource.

[0016] For purposes of this summary, certain aspects, advantages, and novel features of the invention are described herein. It is to be understood that not necessarily all such advantages may be achieved in accordance with any particular embodiment of the invention. Thus, for example, those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention may be embodied or carried out in a manner that achieves one advantage or group of advantages as taught herein without necessarily achieving other advantages as may be taught or suggested herein.

Brief Description of the Drawings

[0017] FIG. 1a illustrates the problem of starvation as it exists in the prior art.

[0018] FIG. 1b illustrates the problem of deadlock as it exists in the prior art.

[0019] FIG. 2 illustrates one embodiment of the state diagram for managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource.

[0020] FIG. 3 illustrates how one embodiment controls access to a shared resource over time.

[0021] FIG. 4a illustrates a high-level block diagram of one embodiment of the present invention.

[0022] FIG. 4b illustrates a high-level block diagram of another embodiment of the present invention.

[0023] FIG. 5a illustrates a sample hash table.

[0024] FIG. 5b illustrates a sample hash table with corresponding sample data.

Detailed Description of Preferred Embodiments

[0025] Systems and methods which represent various embodiments and an example application of the invention will now be described with reference to the drawings. Variations to the systems and methods which represent other embodiments will also be described.

[0026] For purposes of illustration, some embodiments will be described in the context of a standalone computer. The inventors contemplate that the present invention is not limited by the type of environment in which the systems and methods are used, and that the systems and methods may be used in other environments, such as, for example, the Internet, the World Wide Web, a private network for a hospital, a broadcast network for a government agency, an internal network of a corporate enterprise, an intranet, a wide area network, and so forth. The figures and descriptions, however, relate to an embodiment of the invention wherein the environment is that of concurrent access requests to a shared resource. It is recognized that in other embodiments, the systems and methods may be implemented to control concurrent access requests to software applications, software processes, hardware devices, and the like. Moreover, the specific implementations described herein are set forth in order to illustrate, and not to limit, the invention. The scope of the invention is defined by the appended claims.

[0027] These and other features will now be described with reference to the drawings summarized above. The drawings in the associated descriptions are provided to illustrate embodiments of the invention and not to limit the scope of the invention. Throughout the drawings, reference numbers may be re-used to indicate correspondence between referenced elements.

[0028] I. Overview

[0029] The systems and methods of the present invention provide a system for managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource. In one embodiment, the system controls concurrent shared lock requests and exclusive lock requests for a shared resource. By definition, shared lock requests can be granted concurrently and exclusive lock requests can only be granted to one lock owner at a time.

[0030] The differences between the nature of exclusive and shared lock requests give rise to the system limitation of mutual exclusivity. Mutual exclusivity requires that a shared resource has only one exclusive lock owner at any given time. Therefore, should a process have a shared lock on the shared resource, all concurrent exclusive lock requests are deferred and put to sleep and only shared lock requests can be granted. On the other hand, if a shared resource has an exclusive lock owner, all concurrent lock requests, whether they are shared or exclusive, are deferred and put to sleep.

[0031] For example, mutual exclusivity can be illustrated in the context of READ and WRITE operations on a data segment. In this example, all READ operations require a shared lock on the data segment while all WRITE operations require an exclusive lock on the data segment. That is, mutual exclusivity permits multiple users to READ the data segment concurrently, and alternatively requires that only one user may WRITE to the data segment at any given time. Mutual exclusivity is necessary in this context because it is desirable to exclude READ operations on a data segment while a WRITE operation is modifying that data segment. If, however, READ and WRITE operations were permitted to execute concurrently, the READ processes may receive outdated data that is being concurrently modified by a WRITE operation. Furthermore, mutual exclusivity is preferable for data read before a WRITE operation because the age of data read from the data segment can be reconciled with the date of the last WRITE operation on that data segment.

[0032] The system for managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource advantageously provides access, both shared and exclusive, to data when there are a large number of shared lock requests especially in proportion to the number of exclusive lock requests. In some embodiments, the system achieves a compromise between the shared lock and exclusive lock requests such that all requests are granted in an optimally efficient manner.

[0033] One benefit of some embodiments is that they avoid the problem of starvation caused by systems that implement mutual exclusivity. Starvation occurs when one process indicates an intention to obtain an exclusive lock on a shared resource but can never do so because it is possible for other processes to perpetually obtain shared locks before the exclusive lock is granted. For example, assume that process a, has obtained a shared lock on a shared resource. To satisfy the principle of mutual exclusion, process a₃, a process that wishes to obtain an exclusive lock, must wait until all processes have terminated their shared lock. Normally, a₃would be able to obtain an exclusive lock when a, has terminated its shared lock. If, however, another process, a₂, obtains a shared lock concurrent with a, a₃must now wait on both a₁, and a₂to terminate their shared locks. Should other processes obtain shared locks on the shared resource without interruption, a₃will undergo starvation because it will perpetually wait on all shared locks to terminate.

[0034] The following sample code illustrates how a system, wishing to implement mutual exclusivity, will encounter the problem of starvation:

[0035]


	shared_lock(x)
	{
	lock(x.mutex)
	while (x.exclusive > 0)
	sleep (x)
	x.shared = x.shared + 1
	unlock(x.mutex)
	}
	shared_unlock(x)
	{
	lock(x.mutex)
	x.shared = x.shared − 1
	if (x.shared == 0)
	wakeup (x)
	unlock(x.mutex)
	}
	exclusive_lock(x)
	{
	lock(x.mutex)
	while (x.exclusive > 0 or x.shared > 0)
	sleep(x)
	x.exclusive = 1
	unlock(x.mutex)
	}
	exclusive_unlock(x)
	{
	lock(x.mutex)
	x.exclusive = 0
	wakeup(x)
	unlock(x.mutex)
	}

[0036] Given this code, assume that the following operations are performed in sequence: Operation 1 in which process a, calls shared_lock (x), a first-time shared lock; Operation 2 in which process a₃calls exclusive_lock (x), an exclusive lock request; and Operation 3 in which process a₂calls shared_lock (x), a recursive shared lock request, before a₁calls shared_unlock (x).

[0037] Upon execution of Operation 1, process a₁is granted a first-time lock and x. shared is incremented to equal 1 (assuming an initialization of 0). Operation 2 calls exclusive_lock(x) which puts the exclusive lock request to sleep for as long as x. shared is greater than zero. Now, if Operation 3 calls shared_lock (x) before a₁calls shared_unlock (x), x. shared will equal 2 and Operation 2 will have to wait on both a₁and a₂to decrement x. shared to zero by calling shared_unlock (x). Thus, a₃undergoes starvation even though a₂requested a shared lock after a₃requested its exclusive lock.

[0038] Circumstances that would exacerbate this problem are apparent. Should other processes perpetually call shared_lock (x) before process a₃is able to obtain an exclusive lock (e.g., before x. shared is equal to zero), a₃would never be able to access the shared resource.

[0039] FIG. 1A further illustrates the problem of starvation as it exists in the prior art. The vertical axis represents time, and the horizontal access depicts three processes: a₁, a₂, and a₃. For purposes of this illustration, a₁and a₂request only shared locks and a₃requests only exclusive locks.

[0040] At t=0, no locks exist on the shared resource. At t=1, process a₁requests and obtains a first-time shared lock via subprocess a_1a. A process that has no other shared locks will be referred to herein as a first-time shared lock. Thus, at t=1, a₁has a first-time shared lock on the shared resource and x. shared equals one.

[0041] At t=2, process a₁requests and receives a second shared lock via subprocess a_1band x. shared equals 2. A process that receives a second, concurrent shared lock will be referred to herein as a recursive lock. Thus, at t=2, a₁has a recursive lock on the shared resource.

[0042] At t=3, a₃requests an exclusive lock. Because a shared lock exists on the shared resource, a₃must wait until all shared locks have terminated before it can obtain its exclusive lock. At t=4, a₁terminates its recursive lock via a_1bsuch that x. shared equals 1, and a₁continues to hold its initial shared lock. Also, a₂requests and obtains a first-time lock via a_2aon the shared resource such that x. shared equals 2. At this point, a₁and a₂have a shared lock on the resource. At t=5, a₂requests a recursive lock via a_2band a₁terminates its shared lock via a_1aand x. shared equals 2. At t=6, a₁requests a first-time shared lock via a_1aand a₂terminates it recursive lock via a_2bsuch that x. shared equals 2.

[0043] During the preceding operations, from t=3 to t=6, process a₃has had its exclusive lock request deferred. As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the problem of starvation becomes evident should a₁and a₂continue to perpetually request and obtain shared locks on the resource. Because the method employed to generate FIG. 1A does not allow for the termination of shared locks and does not put first-time locks to sleep when an exclusive waiter is present, a₃will be starved for so long as any other process in the system possesses a shared lock on the shared resource. It is desirable to avoid the problem of starvation because it can unnecessarily impede essential operations on a shared resource such as a critical system update.

[0044] Another benefit of some embodiments is that they avoid the problem of deadlock caused by systems that implement mutual exclusivity. Deadlock occurs when a set of processes are waiting on another process in the set to execute. For example, if the set is comprised of processes P₀through P_nwherein P₀is waiting on P₁, P₁is waiting on P₂, P₂is waiting on P₃, . . . and P_nis waiting on P₀, a deadlock has occurred because no process in the set can execute until the process it is waiting for executes.

[0045] The following sample code along with FIG. 1B illustrates how a system, wishing to implement mutual exclusivity, will encounter the problem of deadlock:

[0046]


	shared_lock(x)
	{
	lock(x.mutex)
	while (x.exclusive > 0 or x.exclusive_waiting > 0)
	sleep (x)
	x.shared = x.shared + 1
	unlock(x.mutex)
	}
	shared_unlock(x)
	{
	lock(x.mutex)
	x.shared = x.shared − 1
	if (x.shared == 0)
	wakeup (x)
	unlock(x.mutex)
	}
	exclusive_lock(x)
	{
	lock(x.mutex)
	x.exclusive_waiting = x.exclusive_waiting + 1
	while (x.exclusive > 0 or x.shared > 0)
	sleep(x)
	x.exclusive_waiting = x.exclusive_waiting − 1
	x.exclusive = 1
	unlock(x.mutex)
	}
	exclusive_unlock(x)
	{
	lock(x.mutex)
	x.exclusive = 0
	wakeup(x)
	unlock(x.mutex)
	}

[0047] Given this code and the timeline depicted in FIG. 1B, assume that the following operations are performed in sequence: Operation 1 in which a₁calls shared_lock (x), a first-time shared lock, at t=1; Operation 2 in which a₃calls exclusive_lock (x), an exclusive lock request, at t=2; and Operation 3 in which a₁calls shared_lock (x), a recursive lock request, at t=3

[0048] Upon execution of Operation 1, process a₁is granted a first-time shared lock via subprocess a_1a, and x. shared equals 1 (assuming an initialization of 0). Operation 2 calls exclusive_lock(x) which first increments x. exclusive_waiting and then puts the exclusive lock request to sleep for as long as x. shared is greater than zero. In other words, Operation 2 is waiting for Operation 1 to complete execution before it can grant a₃an exclusive lock and decrement x. exclusive_waiting to zero.

[0049] Now assume that a₁must obtain a recursive lock via a_1b(e.g., Operation 3) in order to complete Operation 1. Operation 3 calls shared_lock (x) which puts a_1bto sleep for as long as x. exclusive_waiting is non-zero. In other words, Operation 3 is waiting on Operation 2 to complete execution before it can obtain the recursive lock.

[0050] Therefore, Operation 1 is waiting on Operation 3 (e.g., shared lock waiting on recursive lock); Operation 2 is waiting on Operation 1 (e.g., exclusive lock waiting on shared lock); and Operation 3 is waiting on Operation 2 (e.g., recursive lock waiting on exclusive lock).

[0051] It is desirable to avoid deadlock because it can cause all operations on a data segment to “hang.” Deadlock decreases system efficiency and requires a system administrator to manually abort one process in the set in order for the other processes in the set to execute.

[0052] II. Method for Managing Concurrent Access Requests to a Shared Resource.

[0053] FIG. 2 illustrates one embodiment of a state diagram for managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource when one exclusive waiter is present. In this embodiment, the method transitions the accounting of shared locks on a particular resource between four states: state one 1; state two 2; state three 3; and state four 4. As the method moves from state one 1 to state four 4, the method is initially done in a global count. Upon the presence of an exclusive waiter, the accounting progressively transitions to a process-specific basis.

[0054] In state one 1, no exclusive waiter is present. So long as no exclusive waiter is present, the method remains in state one 1. Upon receiving a shared lock request 5, the method increments the global count to reflect the total number of shared locks on the shared resource but remains in state one 1. When any shared locks terminate 6, the method decrements the global count accordingly and remains in state one 1.

[0055] If the global count is non-zero, when a process requests an exclusive lock (e.g., an exclusive waiter is present) the method transitions 7 from state one 1 to state two 2. When an exclusive waiter is present, the method increments an exclusive_waiting count.

[0056] In state two 2, an exclusive waiter is present and the global count is non-zero. In this state, an exclusive waiter is put to sleep until an exclusive lock is granted in state four 4. If the method receives a shared lock request 8, the per-process count for that process is incremented and the method remains in state two 2. When a shared lock terminates 9, the system remains in state two 2 but accounting is determined by whether the per-process count for that process is zero. If the per-process count for that process is zero, the global count is decremented. If, however, the per-process count is non-zero, the per-process count is decremented.

[0057] In one embodiment, the per-process count is kept in a hash table. In another embodiment, the per-process count is kept in an existing structure in the kernel. In yet another embodiment, the per-process count is kept in the thread data of a thread implementation. It is recognized that a variety of data structures may be used such as, for example, linked lists, arrays, flat files, binary trees, B trees, queries, databases, and so forth.

[0058] When the global count becomes zero, the method transitions 10 from state two 2 to state three 3. In state three 3, the exclusive-waiting count is non-zero and the global count is zero. If the method receives a recursive lock request 11, the method grants the recursive lock request and increments the per-process count for that process. If the method receives a first-time lock request 12, the method denies the first-time lock request, puts the process requesting the first-time lock to sleep, and increments a first-time lock count. When any shared lock terminates 13, the method decrements the per-process count. In some embodiments, first-time and recursive lock requests are determined by the per-process count.

[0059] When all the per-process counts become zero, the method transitions 14 from state three 3 to state four 4. In state four 4, the global count is zero and all per-process counts are zero (e.g., no recursive shared locks exist on the shared resource). In this state, one exclusive lock request is granted. Upon granting the exclusive lock request, the method decrements the exclusive_waiting count. So long as the process owns an exclusive lock on the shared resource, any shared lock requests 32, first-time and recursive, are deferred and put to sleep. If, after the exclusive lock terminates, no additional exclusive waiters are present, the method transitions 16 from state 4 to state 1 and any deferred shared lock requests are granted.

[0060] In one embodiment, if another exclusive waiter is present in state four 4, the method remains in state four 4 and grants the next exclusive lock request only after the preceding exclusive lock is terminated. First-time shared locks that were deferred before the exclusive lock was granted remain asleep until all deferred exclusive locks are granted. In another embodiment, if the first-time lock count is non-zero and the exclusive waiter counter is non-zero, the system transitions from state 4 to state 2 and deferred first-time shared locks are granted while remaining deferred exclusive lock requests remain asleep.

[0061] In state one 1, if the global count is zero and the process requests an exclusive lock, the method transitions 17 from state one 1 to state four 4. By transitioning 17 directly form state one 1 to state four 4, the process requesting an exclusive lock is granted an exclusive lock immediately because it is not competing for access to the shared resource.

[0062] FIG. 3 is an illustration of how the state diagram in FIG. 2, if employed, allocates access to a shared resource. The vertical access represents time on the left and the relevant state on the right. On the horizontal axis of FIG. 3 are three processes that wish to access the shared resource: processes a₁, a₂, and a₃. For purposes of this illustration, processes a₁and a₂request only shared locks, and process a₃requests only exclusive locks. Within process a₁are two subprocesses, a_1aand a_1b, and within process a₂are two subprocesses, a_2aand a_2b. Subprocesses a_1aand a_2awill only request first-time locks, and subprocesses a_1band a_2bwill only request recursive locks if its paired subprocess already owns a shared lock. Further, the solid lines indicate that a process has a lock on the shared resource, and the dashed lines indicate that the process has been put to sleep after having its lock request deferred.

[0063] At t=0, process a, requests a shared lock 5 via subprocess a_1aand it is granted. Accordingly, the global count, c, is incremented to equal 1. The shared lock request is granted due to the method in state one 1 (e.g., no exclusive waiter is present). At t=1, a₁requests a recursive lock 5 via a_1band it is granted. Accordingly, the global count is incremented to two. At t=2, process a₁terminates its recursive 6 lock via a_1b. Consequently, the global count is decremented to equal one.

[0064] At t=3, process a₃requests an exclusive lock but the process was put to sleep because process a, has a shared lock. Thus, an exclusive waiter is present and the exclusive_waiting count, e, is incremented to 1. Accordingly, the system transitions 7 to state two 2 and the exclusive_waiting count is incremented. In state two 2, all shared locks are granted 8 and accounting of shared locks transitions partially to a process-specific counter, the per-process count. When a process obtains a shared lock, the per-process count for that shared lock is incremented. If the shared lock is terminated 9 in state two 2, however, the per-process count is decremented so long as it is non-zero. If, however, the per-process count is zero, then the global count is decremented.

[0065] At t=4, process a, has its existing shared lock from t=0. Also, process a₁requests a recursive lock via a_1b. The recursive lock is granted and the per-process count for a₁, lo₁, is incremented to equal 1. At t=5, process a, terminates its recursive lock 9 via a_1b. Consequently, lo₁is decremented to equal zero because it was non-zero at the time that a₁terminated its recursive lock via a_1b. At t=6, process a₂requests a first-time 8 lock via a_2a. The per-process count for a₂, lo₂, is incremented to equal 1. At t=7, process a₁terminates its shared lock 9 via a_1a. Because the per-process count for process a₁, lo₁, is already zero, the global count is decremented by 1 to equal zero.

[0066] At t=7, the method transitions 10 from state two 2 to state three 3 because an exclusive waiter is present and the global count has reached zero. In state three 3, recursive lock requests 11 are granted and non-recursive shared lock requests 12 are deferred and put to sleep. When a recursive lock request 11 is granted, the per-process count is incremented. On the other hand, when a recursive lock or an existing shared lock terminates 13, the per-process count is decremented. State three 3 persists until the per-process counts reach zero.

[0067] At t=8, process a₂has a shared lock that remains from state two. Process a₁requests a first-time lock 12 via a_1aat t=8. However, the first-time lock request 13 is deferred and put to sleep. At t=9, process a₂requests a recursive lock 11 via a_2b. Thus, the shared lock is granted and the per-process count, 102, is incremented by one to equal two. At t=10, process a₂terminates its recursive lock 13 via a_2band the per-process count for a₂, lo₂, is decremented to equal one. At t=11, process a₂terminates its shared lock 13 via a_2aand lo₂is decremented to equal zero.

[0068] At t=11, all per-process counts have reached zero and the global count, c, is zero indicating that no shared locks exist. Because no shared locks exist and an exclusive waiter is present, the method transitions 14 to state four 4. In state four 4, one exclusive lock request is granted and all first-time shared lock requests 32 are deferred and put to sleep. Once an exclusive waiter has been granted its exclusive lock to the shared resource, the exclusive_waiting count is decremented by one.

[0069] At t=11, process a₃is granted its exclusive lock request. The exclusive_waiting count, e, is decremented to equal zero. At t=12, process a₂requests a first-time lock 32 on the shared resource, but the request is deferred because process a₃has an exclusive lock on the resource. Accordingly, a₂'s first-time lock request 32 via a_2ais put to sleep.

[0070] At t=13, process a₃terminates its exclusive lock. When the exclusive lock is terminated and no other exclusive waiters are present, the method transitions 16 to state one 1. At this point, pending shared lock requests 5, including first-time shared lock requests, are granted. Thus, pending lock requests by a₁and a₂are granted 5 and the global count is incremented by two. At t=14, process a_1aterminates its shared lock 6 on the shared resource and the global count is decremented to equal 1.

[0071] III. System for Managing Concurrent Access Requests to a Shared Resource

[0072] FIG. 4A illustrates one embodiment of the access management system for managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource. A user 18 is in communication with a computer 24 via a communication medium 19. The computer 24 includes a processor module 20 and a storage device 22.

[0073] In one embodiment, the processor module 20 includes an access management method 21. In another embodiment, the storage device 22 is comprised of the access management method 21. In some embodiments, the access management method 21 is hardwired to implement the state diagram of FIG. 2, the access management method 21 is a software code configured to implement the state diagram of FIG. 2, or the access management method 21 is implemented as a combination of software and firmware.

[0074] The storage device 22 includes a shared resource 23. In some embodiments, the shared resource 23 can be a shared data segment, a shared database, a shared software process, a shared software application, and so forth. In other embodiments, the shared resource may be located outside the storage device and may include a shared device (e.g., printer, CD ROM drive, RAM, mouse, keyboard, monitor, etc.). In further embodiments, the shared resource may be the storage device.

[0075] In FIG. 4A, the user 18 communicates with a computer 24 over a communication medium 19. In some embodiments, if the user 18 calls a function that is recursive, while concurrently calling another process that requires an exclusive lock on the shared resource 23, the access management method 21 implements the state diagram of FIG. 2. In other embodiments, the user 18 initiates some action that later triggers a request for access to a shared resource. In further embodiments, a request to access a shared resource is made without user action. The access management method 21 may then effectively control the concurrent shared and exclusive access requests to the shared resource.

[0076] FIG. 4B illustrates another embodiment of the access management system of managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource. In FIG. 4, the processor module 20 contains an access management method 21. The processor module is in communication with computers one through four 24A-D. In each of these computers is a storage device 21A-D. In computer three 24C, the storage device 22C contains the shared resource 23. When any of the computers 24 A-D in this network attempt to access the shared resource 23, the request is first sent to the processor module 20. The request is controlled by the access management method 21 to handle concurrent access requests.

[0077] In one embodiment, the storage devices without the shared resource 22A, 22B, 22D can access the shared resource 23. In another embodiment, computer three 24C accesses the shared resource 23. In yet another embodiment, computer three 24C contains the access management method 21 and communicates directly with processes requesting concurrent access. In further embodiments, the merge lock process is located on all or a subset of the computers.

[0078] FIG. 5A illustrates a sample hash table for storing process counts. The exemplary hash table 26 includes two columns 33, 34 and a plurality of rows 27-31. Specifically, a process with a shared lock is mapped to an index number 35 and the number of shared locks held by that process is contained in the corresponding process count 36. In one embodiment, the number of rows in the hash table is statistically determined by the specific application of the system.

[0079] FIG. 5B illustrates a sample hash table with corresponding sample data. Using FIG. 3 for data, the hash table can map the individual process counts 36 with their respective number of shared locks. Referring to FIG. 3, the number of shared locks at t=6 is zero for process a₁and one for process a₂. Thus, the first row 27 represents the process count 36 for a₁. In other words, the process count for a₁is mapped to the index 35 in the first row 27 and the value zero is stored in the process count 36 of the first row 27. Similarly, the value one is stored in the second row 28, the index mapped to a_2.

[0080] IV. Conclusion

[0081] While certain embodiments of the invention have been described, these embodiments have been presented by way of example only, and are not intended to limit the scope of the present invention. Accordingly, the breadth and scope of the present invention should be defined in accordance with the following claims and their equivalents.

Claims

Certificate of Correction present

The claims shown below may not include correction changes. Use the corrected PDF for authoritative text.

What is claimed is:

1. A method of managing concurrent access requests to a data segment, comprising:

tracking shared lock requests from a plurality of processes in a first data structure when no exclusive waiter is present, wherein the first data structure tracks the total number of shared locks;

tracking shared lock requests in a second data structure when an exclusive waiter is present and the total number of shared locks is greater than zero, wherein the second data structure tracks the number of shared locks held by each of the plurality of processes;

tracking recursive shared lock requests in the second data structure when an exclusive waiter is present and the total number of shared locks is zero;

granting an exclusive lock to the exclusive waiter when the total number of shared locks is zero and the number of shared locks held by each of the plurality of processes is zero.

2. A method of managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource, comprising:

receiving a first plurality of shared requests;

granting the first plurality of shared requests;

tracking completion of the first plurality of shared requests;

receiving an exclusive request;

receiving a second plurality of shared requests before the first plurality of shared requests has been completed;

granting the second plurality of shared requests;

tracking completion of the second plurality of shared requests on a per-process basis;

receiving a third plurality of shared requests after the first plurality of shared requests has been completed;

determining whether each of the third plurality of shared requests is a recursive request;

for each of the recursive requests,

granting the recursive request; and

tracking completion of the recursive request on a per-process basis; and

after completion of the third plurality of shared requests and the recursive requests, granting the exclusive request.

3. A method of managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource, wherein a first at least one process has a shared lock on the shared resource, comprising:

storing a representation of the number of a second at least one processes waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource in an exclusive waiting count, wherein the exclusive waiting count is a first data structure and the second at least one processes waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource are put to sleep;

storing a representation of the number of first at least one processes that have a shared lock on the shared resource in a global count if the exclusive waiting count indicates that none of the second at least one processes are waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource, wherein the global count is a second data structure;

adjusting a per-process count when one of the first at least one processes obtains a shared lock on the shared resource if the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource, wherein the per-process count is a third data structure that stores a representation of the number of shared locks held by each of the first at least one processes;

adjusting the per-process count when one of the first at least one processes terminates a shared lock on the shared resource if the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource and the global count indicates that at least one of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that the one of the first at least one processes does not hold a shared lock on the shared resource;

adjusting the global count when at least one of the first at least one processes terminates a shared lock on the shared resource if the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource and the global count indicates that at least one of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that none of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource; and

granting all shared lock requests from the first at least one processes if the global count indicates that at least one of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource.

4. The method of managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource of claim 3, wherein the global count indicates that none of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that at least one of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one second processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource, further comprising:

putting to sleep all requests for a first-time lock by the first at least one processes;

granting all requests for a recursive lock by the first at least one processes;

adjusting the per-process count when at least one of the first at least one processes requests a recursive lock on the shared resource; and

adjusting the per-process count when at least one of the first at least one processes terminates a shared lock on the shared resource.

5. The method of managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource of claim 4, wherein the global count indicates that none of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that none of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one second processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource, further comprising:

putting to sleep all requests for a shared lock by the first at least one processes;

granting an exclusive lock to one of the second at least one processes waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource; and

adjusting the exclusive waiting count.

6. The method of managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource of claim 3, wherein the third data structure is a hash table.

7. The method of managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource of claim 5, wherein the global count indicates that none of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that none of the first-at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one second processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource, further comprising:

granting an exclusive lock to each of the second at least one processes waiting to obtain an exclusive lock in turn until the exclusive waiting count indicates that none of the second at least one process is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock.

8. The method of managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource of claim 5, wherein the global count indicates that none of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that none of the first-at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the exclusive waiting count indicates that none of the second at least one second processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource, further comprising:

granting a shared lock to at least one of the first at least one processes that are sleeping.

9. An access management system for managing concurrent access requests to a shared resource comprising:

a shared resource;

a processor module, wherein a first at least one process has a shared lock on the shared resource, configured to:

receive requests from the first at least one processes for a shared lock on the shared resource;

receive requests from a second at least one process for an exclusive lock on the shared resource;

store a representation of the number of a second at least one processes waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource in an exclusive waiting count, wherein the exclusive waiting count is a first data structure and the second at least one processes waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource are put to sleep;

store a representation of the number of the first at least one processes that have a shared lock on the shared resource in a global count if the exclusive waiting count indicates that none of the second at least one processes are waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the share resource, wherein the global count is a second data structure;

adjust a per-process count when one of the first at least one processes obtains a shared lock on the shared resource if the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least on processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource, wherein the per-process count is a third data structure that stores a representation of the number of shared locks held by each of the first at least one processes;

adjust the per-process count when one of the first at least one processes terminates a shared lock on the shared resource if the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource and the global count indicates that at least one of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that one of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource;

adjust the global count when one of the first at least one processes terminates a shared lock on the shared resource if the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource and the global count indicates that at least one of the first at least processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that the one of the first at least one processes does not hold a shared lock on the shared resource; and

grant all shared lock requests from the first at least one processes if the global count indicates that at least one of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource.

10. The access management system of claim 9, further comprising:

the processor module, wherein the writers waiting counter indicates that none of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that at least one of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one second processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource, further configured to:

put to sleep all requests for a first-time lock by the first at least one processes;

grant all requests for a recursive lock by the first at least one processes;

adjust the per-process count when at least one of the first at least one processes requests a recursive lock on the shared resource; and

adjust the per-process count when at least one of the first at least one processes terminates a shared lock on the shared resource.

11. The access management system of claim 10, further comprising:

the processor module, wherein the global count indicates that none of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that none of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one second processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource, further configured to:

put to sleep all requests for a shared lock by the first at least one processes;

grant an exclusive lock to one of the second at least one processes waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource; and

adjust the exclusive waiting count.

12. The access management system of claim 9, wherein the third data structure is a hash table.

13. The access management system of claim 11, further comprising:

the process module, wherein the global count indicates that none of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that none of the first-at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the exclusive waiting count indicates that at least one of the second at least one second processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource, further configured to:

grant an exclusive lock to each of the second at least one processes waiting to obtain an exclusive lock in turn until the exclusive waiting count indicates that none of the second at least one process is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock.

14. The access management system of claim 11, further comprising:

the processor module, wherein the global count indicates that none of the first at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the per-process count indicates that none of the first-at least one processes holds a shared lock on the shared resource and the exclusive waiting count indicates that none of the second at least one second processes is waiting to obtain an exclusive lock on the shared resource, further configured to:

grant a shared lock to at least one of the first at least one processes that are sleeping.

15. The access management system of claim 9, wherein the first and second at least one processes are received from a plurality of sources.

16. The access management system of claim 9, further comprising:

the shared resource, wherein the shared resource is located on a standalone computer; and

the processor module, wherein the processor module is located on the standalone computer.

17. The access management system of claim 9, wherein the shared resource is remotely located from the processor module.

Patent Citations (91)

Patent	Date	Inventor	Cited By
US5163131(A)	1992-11-01	Row et al.	Applicant
US5258984(A)	1993-11-01	Menon et al.	Applicant
US5403639(A)	1995-04-01	Belsan et al.	Applicant
US5548724(A)	1996-08-01	Akizawa et al.	Applicant
US5596709(A)	1997-01-01	Bond et al.	Applicant
US5657439(A)	1997-08-01	Jones et al.	Applicant
US5668943(A)	1997-09-01	Attanasio et al.	Applicant
US5734826(A)	1998-03-01	Olnowich et al.	Applicant
US5761659(A)	1998-06-01	Bertoni	Examiner
US5774643(A)	1998-06-01	Lubbers et al.	Applicant
US5805900(A)	1998-09-01	Fagen et al.	Examiner
US5862312(A)	1999-01-01	Mann	Applicant
US5870563(A)	1999-02-01	Roper et al.	Applicant
US5884098(A)	1999-03-01	Mason, Jr.	Applicant
US5933834(A)	1999-08-01	Aichelen	Applicant
US5943690(A)	1999-08-01	Dorricott et al.	Applicant
US5996089(A)	1999-11-01	Mann	Applicant
US6029168(A)	2000-02-01	Frey	Applicant
US6038570(A)	2000-03-01	Hitz et al.	Applicant
US6070172(A)	2000-05-01	Lowe	Applicant
US6081883(A)	2000-06-01	Popelka et al.	Applicant
US6138126(A)	2000-10-01	Hitz et al.	Applicant
US6154854(A)	2000-11-01	Stallmo	Applicant
US6209059(B1)	2001-03-01	Ofer et al.	Applicant
US6219693(B1)	2001-04-01	Napolitano et al.	Applicant
US6321345(B1)	2001-11-01	Mann	Applicant
US6334168(B1)	2001-12-01	Islam et al.	Applicant
US6384626(B2)	2002-05-01	Tsai et al.	Applicant
US6385626(B1)	2002-05-01	Tamer et al.	Applicant
US6397311(B1)	2002-05-01	Capps	Applicant
US6449730(B2)	2002-09-01	Mann	Applicant
US6457139(B1)	2002-09-01	D'Errico et al.	Applicant
US6502172(B2)	2002-12-01	Chang	Applicant
US6502174(B1)	2002-12-01	Beardsley et al.	Applicant
US6526478(B1)	2003-02-01	Kirby	Applicant
US6546443(B1)	2003-04-01	Kakivaya et al.	Examiner
US6557114(B2)	2003-04-01	Mann	Applicant
US6567926(B2)	2003-05-01	Mann	Applicant
US6571349(B1)	2003-05-01	Mann	Applicant
US6574745(B2)	2003-06-01	Mann	Applicant
US6594660(B1)	2003-07-01	Berkowitz et al.	Examiner
US6598174(B1)	2003-07-01	Parks et al.	Applicant
US6618798(B1)	2003-09-01	Burton et al.	Applicant
US6934878(B2)	2005-08-01	Massa et al.	Applicant
US6940966(B2)	2005-09-01	Lee	Applicant
US7146524(B2)	2006-12-01	Patel et al.	Applicant
US2001/0047451(A1)	2001-11-01	Noble et al.	Applicant
US2002/0124137(A1)	2002-09-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0138559(A1)	2002-09-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0156840(A1)	2002-10-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0156891(A1)	2002-10-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0156973(A1)	2002-10-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0156974(A1)	2002-10-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0156975(A1)	2002-10-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0161846(A1)	2002-10-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0161850(A1)	2002-10-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0161973(A1)	2002-10-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0165942(A1)	2002-11-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0166026(A1)	2002-11-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0166079(A1)	2002-11-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0169827(A1)	2002-11-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0174295(A1)	2002-11-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0174296(A1)	2002-11-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0178162(A1)	2002-11-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0191311(A1)	2002-12-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0194523(A1)	2002-12-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2002/0194526(A1)	2002-12-01	Ulrich et al.	Applicant
US2003/0014391(A1)	2003-01-01	Evans et al.	Applicant
US2003/0033308(A1)	2003-02-01	Patel et al.	Applicant
US2003/0135514(A1)	2003-07-01	Patel et al.	Applicant
US2003/0172149(A1)	2003-09-01	Edsall et al.	Applicant
US2004/0153479(A1)	2004-08-01	Mikesell et al.	Applicant
US2004/0199734(A1)	2004-10-01	Rajamani et al.	Examiner
US2005/0114609(A1)	2005-05-01	Shorb	Examiner
US2006/0004760(A1)	2006-01-01	Clift et al.	Examiner
US2006/0095438(A1)	2006-05-01	Fachan et al.	Applicant
US2006/0101062(A1)	2006-05-01	Godman et al.	Applicant
US2006/0230411(A1)	2006-10-01	Richter et al.	Examiner
US2006/0277432(A1)	2006-12-01	Patel	Applicant
US2007/0091790(A1)	2007-04-01	Passey et al.	Applicant
US2007/0094269(A1)	2007-04-01	Mikesell et al.	Applicant
US2007/0094277(A1)	2007-04-01	Fachan et al.	Applicant
US2007/0094310(A1)	2007-04-01	Passey et al.	Applicant
US2007/0094431(A1)	2007-04-01	Fachan	Applicant
US2007/0094452(A1)	2007-04-01	Fachan	Applicant
US2007/0168351(A1)	2007-07-01	Fachan	Applicant
US2007/0171919(A1)	2007-07-01	Godman et al.	Applicant
US2007/0195810(A1)	2007-08-01	Fachan	Applicant
EP774723	1997-05-01		Applicant
WO1/14991	2001-03-01		Applicant
WO2/061737	2002-08-01		Applicant

Non-Patent Literature (48)

Coulouris et al.; “Distributed Systems Concepts and Design”; Addison-Wesley; Second Edition; 1994; pp. 353-371 and 377-405.Examiner
Stallings, William; “Operating Systems”; Prentice Hall; Fourth Edition; 2001; pp. 197-253 and 265-293.Examiner
Nov. 15, 2002 International Search Report PCT/US02/24728.Applicant
Apr. 20, 2004 International Search Report PCT/US03/36699.Applicant
Aug. 6, 2004 International Search Report PCT/US03/33704.Applicant
Philip A. Bernstein, Vassos Hadzilacos, and Nathan Goodman, Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems, Addison-Wesley, 1987.Applicant
Birk, Y., Deterministic load-balancing schemes for disk-based video-on-demand storage servers, Mass Storage Systems 1995; Storage—At the Forefront of Information Infrastructures', Proceedings of the Fourteenth IEEE Symposium on Monterey, CA, Sep. 11-14, 1995, pp. 17-25.Applicant
Kenneth P. Birman, Building Secure and Reliable Network Applications, Manning, 1996, pp. 1-327.Applicant
Kenneth P. Birman, Building Secure and Reliable Network Applications, Manning, 1996, pp. 328-620.Applicant
Coulouris et al., Distributed Systems Concepts and Design, Addison-Wesley, Second Edition, 1994, pp. 353-371 and 377-405.Applicant
Jim Gray and Andreas Reuter, Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques, Morgan Kaufmann, 1993, pp. 1-328.Applicant
Jim Gray and Andreas Reuter, Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques, Morgan Kaufmann, 1993, pp. 329-664.Applicant
Jim Gray and Andreas Reuter, Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques, Morgan Kaufmann, 1993, pp. 665-1105.Applicant
Nancy A. Lynch, Distributed Algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann, 1996, pp. 1-409.Applicant
Nancy A. Lynch, Distributed Algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann, 1996, pp. 410-871.Applicant
Sape Mullender, editor, Distributed Systems (2nd Ed.), ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA, 1993, pp. 1-327.Applicant
Sape Mullender, editor, Distributed Systems (2nd Ed.), ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA, 1993, pp. 328-604.Applicant
Gibson, Garth A. et al., The Scotch Parallel Storage System, IEEE, 1995, pp. 403-410.Applicant
Gerhard Weikum, et al., Transactional Information Systems: Theory, Algorithms, and the Practice of Concurrency Control and Recovery, Morgan Kaufmann, 2002, pp. 1-450.Applicant
Gerhard Weikum, et al., Transactional Information Systems: Theory, Algorithms, and the Practice of Concurrency Control and Recovery, Morgan Kaufmann, 2002, pp. 451-863.Applicant
Sanjay Ghemawat et al., The Google File System, Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, Oct. 19-22, 2003, 15 pages, Bolton Landing, NY.Applicant
Pei Cao et al., The TickerTAIP parallel RAID architecture, 1993, 12 pages, Princeton, NJ.Applicant
Pei Cao et al., The TickerTAIP parallel RAID architecture, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, vol. 12, No. 3, Aug. 1994, 34 pages, Palto Alto, California.Applicant
Bob Duzett, et al., An Overview of the nCube 3 Supercomputer, IEEE, Jul. 1992, pp. 458-464.Applicant
John Henry Hartman, The Zebra Striped Network File System, 1994, pp. 1-148, University of California at Berkeley.Applicant
Darrell D.E. Long et al., Swift/RAID: A Distributed RAID System, Computing Systems, vol. 7, No. 3 Summer 1994, pp. 333-359.Applicant
Michael Stonebraker et al., Distributed Raid: A new Multiple copy Algorithm, IEEE 1990, pp. 430-437, Berkeley, California.Applicant
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Seachange International, Inc. Vs. nCUBE, Corp., Oct. 26, 2004, 28 pages.Applicant
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Seachange International, Inc. Vs. C-Cor, Inc., Jun. 29, 2005, 22 pages.Applicant
United States District Court, Delaware, Seachange International, Inc. Vs. nCUBE, Corp., Apr. 7, 2004, 13 pages.Applicant
United States District Court, Delaware, Seachange International, Inc. Vs. nCUBE, Corp., Aug. 29, 2000, 12 pages.Applicant
European Search Report dated May 21, 2007 issued to EP application No. 02756944.1-2201.Applicant
Stallings, William, “Operating Systems,” Prentice Hall, Fourth Edition, 2001, pp. 197-253 and 265-293.Applicant
Steven M. Bauer, Letter to Steve Goldman, Jul. 31, 2006 (including the first pages of the patents).Applicant
Arthur S. Rose, Letter to Steven M. Bauer, Aug. 7, 2006.Applicant
Steven M. Bauer, Letter to Arthur S. Rose, Sep. 25, 2006.Applicant
Steven M. Bauer, Letter to Arthur S. Rose, Oct. 31, 2006.Applicant
Arthur S. Rose, Letter to Steven M. Bauer, Nov. 9, 2006.Applicant
Steven M. Bauer, Letter to Arthur S. Rose, Feb. 6, 2007.Applicant
Arthur S. Rose, Letter to Steven M. Bauer, Feb. 23, 2007.Applicant
Steven M. Bauer, Letter to Arthur S. Rose, Jun. 7, 2007 (including claim chart).Applicant
Arthur S. Rose, Letter to Steven M. Bauer, Jun. 22, 2007.Applicant
Todd A. Gerety, Letter to Arthur S. Rose, Jun. 26, 2007 (including exhibits listed separately).Applicant
Isilon Systems, “Isilon IQ Platform Overview”, 1-4.Applicant
Isilon Systems, “Uncompromising Reliability through Clustered Storage”, Sep. 2006, 1-10.Applicant
Byteandswitch, “Discovery Chooses Isilon,” Apr. 23, 2007, 1.Applicant
Taneja Group Technology Analysts, “The Power of InfiniBand and Clustered Storage”, Dec. 2005, 1-8.Applicant
Arthur S. Rose, Letter to Steven M. Bauer, Aug. 31, 2007.Applicant