[jira] [Created] (BOOKKEEPER-749) Improve LedgerUnderreplicationManager#getLedgerToRereplicate()

Rakesh R created BOOKKEEPER-749: --- Summary: Improve LedgerUnderreplicationManager#getLedgerToRereplicate() Key: BOOKKEEPER-749 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-749 Project: Bookkeepe

[jira] [Updated] (BOOKKEEPER-749) Improve LedgerUnderreplicationManager#getLedgerToRereplicate()

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Rakesh R updated BOOKKEEPER-749: Attachment: 1-BOOKKEEPER-749-interface.patch > Improve LedgerUnderreplicationManager#getLed

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-749) Improve LedgerUnderreplicationManager#getLedgerToRereplicate()

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13982848#comment-13982848 ] Rakesh R commented on BOOKKEEPER-749: - Hi [~ikelly], [~fpj], I've attached initial

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-733) Improve ReplicationWorker to handle the urLedgers which already have same leder replica in hand

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-733?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13982860#comment-13982860 ] Rakesh R commented on BOOKKEEPER-733: - I've created separate JIRA BOOKKEEPER-749 t

Re: Review Request 17895: BOOKKEEPER-582: protobuf support for bookkeeper

> On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote: > > > > Sijie Guo wrote: > ok. let me step back. how bad is the current protocol? if no, why we keep > arguing on this? as those changes will break our system, then I don't see the > value of contributing our patches back to the community.

Re: Review Request 17895: BOOKKEEPER-582: protobuf support for bookkeeper

> On April 24, 2014, 12:19 p.m., Ivan Kelly wrote: > > bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 81 > > > > > > ledgerId and entryId should be optional in all requests. It may be the > > case, tha

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-749) Improve LedgerUnderreplicationManager#getLedgerToRereplicate()

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13982879#comment-13982879 ] Ivan Kelly commented on BOOKKEEPER-749: --- A method taking a callback *and* return

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-749) Improve LedgerUnderreplicationManager#getLedgerToRereplicate()

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13982893#comment-13982893 ] Rakesh R commented on BOOKKEEPER-749: - oh ok. Here the difference is, I tried to a

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-749) Improve LedgerUnderreplicationManager#getLedgerToRereplicate()

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13982895#comment-13982895 ] Rakesh R commented on BOOKKEEPER-749: - Adding one more point: Yes the api is synch

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-749) Improve LedgerUnderreplicationManager#getLedgerToRereplicate()

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13982899#comment-13982899 ] Ivan Kelly commented on BOOKKEEPER-749: --- I would put async notification into sep

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-749) Improve LedgerUnderreplicationManager#getLedgerToRereplicate()

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13982909#comment-13982909 ] Rakesh R commented on BOOKKEEPER-749: - Hope will define a new listener for this an

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-749) Improve LedgerUnderreplicationManager#getLedgerToRereplicate()

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13982934#comment-13982934 ] Rakesh R commented on BOOKKEEPER-749: - How about seeing the underreplication liste

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-749) Improve LedgerUnderreplicationManager#getLedgerToRereplicate()

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13982955#comment-13982955 ] Ivan Kelly commented on BOOKKEEPER-749: --- What's the reason for having a base int

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-749) Improve LedgerUnderreplicationManager#getLedgerToRereplicate()

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13982998#comment-13982998 ] Rakesh R commented on BOOKKEEPER-749: - bq.What's the reason for having a base inte

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-749) Improve LedgerUnderreplicationManager#getLedgerToRereplicate()

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13983116#comment-13983116 ] Ivan Kelly commented on BOOKKEEPER-749: --- > Instead of notifyUnderreplicationChan

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-749) Improve LedgerUnderreplicationManager#getLedgerToRereplicate()

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13983229#comment-13983229 ] Rakesh R commented on BOOKKEEPER-749: - As compared to the earlier, now the plan is

Re: Review Request 17895: BOOKKEEPER-582: protobuf support for bookkeeper

> On April 24, 2014, 12:19 p.m., Ivan Kelly wrote: > > bookkeeper-server/src/main/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.proto, line 81 > > > > > > ledgerId and entryId should be optional in all requests. It may be the > > case, tha

Re: Review Request 17895: BOOKKEEPER-582: protobuf support for bookkeeper

> On April 23, 2014, 10:22 a.m., Ivan Kelly wrote: > > > > Sijie Guo wrote: > ok. let me step back. how bad is the current protocol? if no, why we keep > arguing on this? as those changes will break our system, then I don't see the > value of contributing our patches back to the community.