I'd also suggest JGroups 2.12.0.Final, not sure if Infinispan 4.2.1.CR4 ships with it...
On 3/18/11 5:25 PM, david marion wrote: > > > I will see if I can get 4.2.1.CR4 uploaded onto the system. Is there a > reference to the system property in question? > > > > From: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:07:06 +0000 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] Infinispan Large Scale support > > > > > > On 18 Mar 2011, at 15:45, david marion wrote: > > Bela, > > Agreed, increasing the timeouts is probably not the way to go. However I > am at the mercy of whatever Infinispan is doing. As for the notion of > Infinispan being tested at 1000 nodes: > > Manik was quoted here: > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/netsys/article.php/3864436/Red-Hat-Ramps-Up-Open-Source-Cloud-Projects.htm > > > > Yeah, we got a hold of an 1100 node cluster to test on at that time. But > that cluster proved unstable and kept falling over with network issues. > > > It was never denied here: http://community.jboss.org/thread/156494?tstart=0 > and I'll have to wait until I get home to dig up an email that I think I > have. > > However, I'm not assigning blame, I was under the impression that it had been > tested at 1000 nodes. I just had it up at 430 nodes, but I can't reliably get > it to that size when I restart it. I think the answer is that Infinispan will > have to use what will scale in JGroups (remove what does not scale). Until > then I will have to scale it down to a size that I can start in a reliable > fashion. > > Still no answer on whether ISPN-83 will be in 4.2.1..... > > > > See my response earlier on this thread about this. > > > Specifically, Infinispan throws a config exception if FLUSH is *not* present. > However, we did cut a release without this check and ran our defaults > without FLUSH. It worked well enough for most people, except one important > use case. And this is what needs further investigation. It seems as though > the problem with that use case was not the removal of FLUSH, but some > dependence in the test in question on FLUSH. But it's too late in the 4.2.1 > cycle to pull something like this, hence my proposal to leave FLUSH in by > default but to allow a FLUSH-free config via a (temporary, 4.2.x only) system > property while we investigate properly removing FLUSH in 5.0. > > > Cheers > Manik > > > -- > > > Manik Surtani > [email protected] > twitter.com/maniksurtani > > > Lead, Infinispan > http://www.infinispan.org > > > > _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev -- Bela Ban Lead JGroups / Clustering Team JBoss _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
