On 27 Jan 2012, at 14:09, Mircea Markus wrote: > > On 26 Jan 2012, at 22:42, Manik Surtani wrote: >> I really didn't want to do this, but it looks like a 5.1.1 will be >> necessary. The biggest (critical, IMO, for 5.1.1) issues I see are: >> >> 1. https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1786 - I presume this has to do with >> a bug Mircea spotted that virtual nodes were not being enabled by the config >> parser. Which meant that even in the case of tests enabling virtual nodes, >> we still saw uneven distribution and hence poor performance (well spotted, >> Mircea). >> 2. Related to 1, I don't think there is a JIRA for this yet, to change the >> default number of virtual nodes from 1 to 100 or so. After we profile and >> analyse the impact of enabling this by default. I'm particularly concerned >> about (a) memory footprint and (b) effects on Hot Rod relaying topology >> information back to clients. Maybe 10 is a more sane default as a result. > > There is one now: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1801 > >> 3. https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1788 - config parser out of sync >> with XSD! >> 4. https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1798 - forceReturnValues parameter >> in the RemoteCacheManager.getCache() method is ignored! > > I'm sure there will some others as community starts reporting! but that's > good as we can provide a quick release for the main issues. > >> In addition, we may as well have these "nice to have's" in as well: >> >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1787 >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1793 >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1795 > > these ^^ are already in master so we can include them straight away. >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1789 > > this looks like a low prio, as doesn't have an impact on the functionality
Agreed, but it is such a trivial fix and it greatly affects usability (who wants to see such verbose and misleading log messages?) > >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1784 > pull request sent, so IMO makes sense. >> >> What do you think? Anything else you feel that is crucial for a 5.1.1? I'd >> like to do this sooner rather than later, so we can still focus on 5.2.0. >> So please respond asap. > As everybody is in the performance min set, I think the following issues, in > this order, would be a quick win: > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-825 > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-317 > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1748 -1 to all 3. I think these are all non-trivial and shouldn't be in a point release - even if it is a week's worth of work. Cheers Manik -- Manik Surtani ma...@jboss.org twitter.com/maniksurtani Lead, Infinispan http://www.infinispan.org
_______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
