Hello.
We are going to use Infinispan in our project as NoSQL solution. It
performs quite well for us, but currently we've faced next problem.
Note: We are using Infinispan 5.1.6 in SYNC_REPL mode in small cluster.
The problem is that when any node fails, any running transactions wait
for Jgroups
On May 30, 2013, at 5:10 PM, vitalii.tymchys...@ubs.com wrote:
> Hello.
>
> We are going to use Infinispan in our project as NoSQL solution. It
> performs quite well for us, but currently we've faced next problem.
> Note: We are using Infinispan 5.1.6 in SYNC_REPL mode in small cluster.
> The pr
g
[mailto:infinispan-dev-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Galder Zamarreno
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:04 AM
To: infinispan -Dev List
Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] Using infinispan as quorum-based nosql
On May 30, 2013, at 5:10 PM, vitalii.tymchys...@ubs.com wrote:
> Hello.
>
> We
ts.jboss.org [mailto:
> infinispan-dev-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Galder Zamarreno
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:04 AM
> To: infinispan -Dev List
> Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] Using infinispan as quorum-based nosql
>
>
> On May 30, 2013, at 5:10 PM, vitalii.t
g] On Behalf Of Dan Berindei
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 12:04 PM
To: infinispan -Dev List
Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] Using infinispan as quorum-based nosql
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:23 PM, wrote:
Hello.
Thanks for your information. I will subscribe and vote for th
round on how we could force the smaller partition to
> receive data from the quorum partition, but I think with the public API
> your best option is to stop all the caches in the smaller partition after
> the split and start them back up after the merge.
>
> Cheers
> Dan
>
>
n-dev-boun...@lists.jboss.org
[mailto:infinispan-dev-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Dan Berindei
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 5:09 AM
To: infinispan -Dev List
Subject: Re: [infinispan-dev] Using infinispan as quorum-based nosql
Say you have two transactions, tx1 and tx2. They both send a
LockControl
On 6 Jun 2013, at 10:09, Dan Berindei wrote:
> Say you have two transactions, tx1 and tx2. They both send a
> LockControlCommand(k1) to the primary owner of k1 (let's call it B).
> If the lock commands use SYNCHRONOUS_IGNORE_LEAVERS and B dies while
> processing the commands, both tx1 and tx2
