+1,

to me "Multi-site" is too rigid. People might forget that this is a inter-cluster comms channel. Which would allow them to have many clusters running in the same DC, sharing data between them, satisfying the data requirements for different systems/applications.


On 22/06/2016 4:54 AM, Gregory Chase wrote:
I'm +0 to "Multi-site", but like "multi-cluster" slightly better for two
reasons...

1) It comes after "Clustering", showing a ++ more clearly
2) In my opinion its more inclusive of both "multi-site" and also workload
partitioning where two clusters might be in the same data center, but have
different applications they serve.

Thoughts?

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:49 AM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote:

+1

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io>
wrote:

Take 3: http://i.imgur.com/VUQRw4u.png
1. Replaced Redis logo with http://fontawesome.io/icon/plug/
2. Changed WAN to Multi-Site.

Thanks!
Swapnil.

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 7:22 PM, theseusyang <theseusy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I agree with Greg, "Multi-Cluster"  is accurated especially for
cluster-2-cluster replication in one DC site.



--
View this message in context:

http://apache-geode-incubating-developers-forum.70738.x6.nabble.com/update-website-for-WAN-CQ-and-native-client-tp6659p6763.html
Sent from the Apache Geode (Incubating) Developers Forum mailing list
archive at Nabble.com.



--
-John
503-504-8657
john.blum10101 (skype)




Reply via email to