Problem: The miner's local-store concurrency guarantees are explicitly designed for two local processes sharing one file — that model doesn't translate to many remote users against one shared hosted service without a real datastore migration.
Area: AMS / Cloud architecture
Proposal: Re-evaluate the concurrency model once the shared-datastore work above lands, ensuring the new backend's own concurrency guarantees are correctly understood and don't silently inherit assumptions that only held for the local-file case.
Deliverables:
- A documented concurrency model appropriate to the new shared backend, verified by test under real concurrent load.
Boundaries:
- Depends on "Replace the local-file database abstraction with a shared datastore for hosted use" above.
Problem: The miner's local-store concurrency guarantees are explicitly designed for two local processes sharing one file — that model doesn't translate to many remote users against one shared hosted service without a real datastore migration.
Area: AMS / Cloud architecture
Proposal: Re-evaluate the concurrency model once the shared-datastore work above lands, ensuring the new backend's own concurrency guarantees are correctly understood and don't silently inherit assumptions that only held for the local-file case.
Deliverables:
Boundaries: