Re: Release manager permissions

Hi, Do you know if any company has offered to sponsor the CI pipelines? What would it take for such a company besides paying the bills? Would a migration be needed? Regarding the old ASF Jenkins jobs, my understanding is that they would offer the same CI functionality as we have today, but

Re: Apache Geode 1.15.1 patch version

From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 11:20 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Apache Geode 1.15.1 patch version Jakov and I will take care of it. Regards, Alberto From: Anthony Baker Sent: Thursday

Re: Apache Geode 1.15.1 patch version

/1.15 branch? Anthony > On Sep 15, 2022, at 5:11 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote: > > ⚠ External Email > > Hi, > > One more I forgot related to: "Fix string codepoint detection > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%

Re: Apache Geode 1.15.1 patch version

Hi, One more I forgot related to: "Fix string codepoint detection https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-10076": GEODE-10404 Fix compilation for Java 11: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-10404 BR, Alberto ____ From: Alberto Gomez Sent

Re: Apache Geode 1.15.1 patch version

Hi community, I propose to add the following PRs to this patch release: [Bug] GEODE-10417 Fix NullPointerException when getting events from the gw sender queue to complete

Re: [PROPOSAL] Relocate Geode Docs from code repo to seperate repo

Hi Dave, Supposing we move the documentation out of the geode code repo, if I download a certain release of Geode, how do I know which version of the documentation I must download which will be consistent with the code? Having both the docs and the code in the same repo makes the above

Re: [PROPOSAL] Relocate Geode Docs from code repo to seperate repo

Hi, I agree with Udo and John that having the docs and the code in the same repo really helps to have both in-sync. Therefore, I would not separate them in different repos. I'd rather see a change in the process to overcome the difficulties faced with the documentation after the code is

Re: [DISCUSS] Alignment of values disabling idleTimeout/loadConditioningInterval between Geode client APIs

client. Or vice versa. I think most users of one client do not even use the other client. From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 8:20 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSS] Alignment of values disabling idleTimeout/loadConditioningInterval between

[DISCUSS] Alignment of values disabling idleTimeout/loadConditioningInterval between Geode client APIs

Hi, According to the documentation of the Geode Java client API, setting -1 for idleTimeout in a Pool indicates that connections should never expire: https://geode.apache.org/releases/latest/javadoc/org/apache/geode/cache/client/PoolFactory.html#setIdleTimeout-long- Nevertheless, according to

Re: [PROPOSAL] RFC Interruption of threads stuck for a long time in Geode

Hi, The deadline for this RFC has expired but I would like to get some more feedback on the proposal, so I will extend it a bit more. Your comments are very welcome. Alberto From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 10:11 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove warning logs from FunctionException

, Alberto From: Barry Oglesby Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 2:32 AM To: Alberto Gomez ; dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove warning logs from FunctionException A function can throw an exception and can also return an exception in its result. I'm

Re: On conserve-sockets=true with WAN and/or transactions - Follow-up on April's Geode Community Meeting

with several servers in each site and a multi-threaded client doing puts would cause the deadlock. That is not happening in my tests. We would need way more than a few simple tests to prove that it doesn't deadlock in other scenarios, though. Barry From: Alberto

On conserve-sockets=true with WAN and/or transactions - Follow-up on April's Geode Community Meeting

Hi, Following up on the discussion we had yesterday in the Apache Geode Community meeting around the "Reflections on conserve-sockets setting in Apache Geode" topic, I'd like to post here some questions that could not be fully answered during the meeting: The Geode documentation states the

Re: April 2022 Community Meeting

Hi all, This is a reminder for tomorrow's (April 7th at 8:00 Pacific / 15:00 UTC / 17:00 CEST) Apache Geode Community meeting. Hope to see you there, Alberto From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 1:05 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: April 2022

[PROPOSAL] RFC Interruption of threads stuck for a long time in Geode

Hi, I'd appreciate your feedback on this newly published RFC about "Interruption of threads stuck for a long time in Geode": https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Interruption+of+threads+stuck+for+a+long+time+in+Geode Thanks in advance, Alberto

Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove warning logs from FunctionException

uently, and will also allow the person troubleshooting/debugging issues to easily tell that something is wrong with function XXX. Cheers. On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 at 17:52, Jacob Barrett wrote: > > > On Mar 30, 2022, at 9:45 AM, Alberto Gomez alberto.go...@est.tech>> wrot

April 2022 Community Meeting

Hi devs, Next Thursday, April 7th, is our next Community Meeting. We plan to present on the next topic: "Reflections on the conserve-sockets setting in Geode". The meeting will take place, as usual, at 8:00 Pacific (15:00 UTC, 17:00 CEST). Please, find the meeting details on the wiki:

Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove warning logs from FunctionException

occurring functions. ________ From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 4:35 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove warning logs from FunctionException ⚠ External Email Hi all, I have not received any feedback on this proposal so far. Does anybody h

Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove warning logs from FunctionException

Hi all, I have not received any feedback on this proposal so far. Does anybody have anything against it? Otherwise, I would like to proceed with the implementation of it. Thanks, Alberto From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 4:29 PM To: dev

[PROPOSAL] Remove warning logs from FunctionException

Hi, Regarding how to implement a Function in Apache Geode and coding the execute method, the following is stated in [1]: "To propagate an error condition or exception back to the caller of the function, throw a FunctionException from the execute method. Geode transmits the exception back to

Question about crossing NUMA boundary

Hi, We understand the recommendation is to fit the Geode JVM within one NUMA node for optimal performance, so in case we're running in a system with multiple NUMA nodes and our JVM can fit in the memory available in a single NUMA, it is recommended to pin it there ([1]). However, does anyone

Re: New RFC about Enhancements in Off-heap memory fragmentation visibility

with the implementation of the proposal after the deadline is met. Thanks, Alberto From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 6:48 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: New RFC about Enhancements in Off-heap memory fragmentation visibility Hi fellow devs, Here is an RFC

Next Apache Community Meeting: February 17th

Hi devs, This is a reminder about tomorrow's (February 17th at 8:00 PST / 16:00 UTC) next community meeting in which we plan to present and discuss the following topic: "Thread and server health monitoring: how to kick out slow/sick members and the like" Details here:

Next Geode community meeting: 17th of February

Hi all, We'd like to propose to have our next Geode community meeting on February 17th to present and discuss the following topic: "Thread and server health monitoring: how to kick out slow/sick members and the like" Details here:

New RFC about Enhancements in Off-heap memory fragmentation visibility

Hi fellow devs, Here is an RFC on "Enhance Off-heap memory fragmentation visibility": https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Enhance+Off-heap+memory+fragmentation+visibility Your review and comments are very welcome! Alberto

Re: API check error when adding a new method to a public interface

compatibility). If you have any requirement please propose through RFC and get an approval. -Anil. On 11/23/21, 8:44 AM, "Alberto Gomez" wrote: Hi, After the introduction of GEODE-9702 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-9702), adding a new method to a public interface

API check error when adding a new method to a public interface

Hi, After the introduction of GEODE-9702 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-9702), adding a new method to a public interface will make the api-check-test-openjdk11 fail even if a default implementation is provided. My question is if the goal of this change is to forbid this type of

"missing image artifact source: alpine-tools-image" when running CI

Hi, I am getting the following error when running CI jobs after pushing changes in a PR: "missing image artifact source: alpine-tools-image" https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/apache-develop-pr/jobs/build/builds/163 Anyone else experiencing the same? Alberto

Re: Test failures on Windows with insufficient memory for the JRE while running distributed tests

ut. I think it would be best to get help from an > expert in the OS images and pipeline details. > > Cheers, > Kirk > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 12:59 AM Alberto Gomez > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am having issues with insufficient memory for the Java Runtime

Test failures on Windows with insufficient memory for the JRE while running distributed tests

Hi, I am having issues with insufficient memory for the Java Runtime Environment when running some tests on the CI under Windows from the following PR : https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/7006 The tests never fail under Linux. This is the error I get for some VMs: [vm4] # There is

Re: October Community Meeting

_ From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 00:09 To: dev@geode.apache.org ; u...@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: October Community Meeting Hi, We would like to touch on the topic Anthony mentioned. We could present the problem and the different approaches we have explored so far and then co

Re: October Community Meeting

Hi, We would like to touch on the topic Anthony mentioned. We could present the problem and the different approaches we have explored so far and then continue with the discussion started in the RFC. It could be on next week's meeting or in a later meeting. Alberto

Re: PROPOSAL: Remove WAN TX Batching Serialization Changes

Changes > On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:31 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote: > > Hi, > > Jake, why do you say the feature is not complete in 1.14.0? In my view, it > works as it was designed and as documented. Sorry, I was misinformed and misjudge the state. I meant no disrespect. > I

Re: PROPOSAL: Remove WAN TX Batching Serialization Changes

Hi, Jake, why do you say the feature is not complete in 1.14.0? In my view, it works as it was designed and as documented. I do not think it makes sense to remove a feature shipped in the 1.14.0 release that customers might already be using. If the urgent issue to solve is the unnecessary

Re: [DISCUSS] Modularizing new WAN TX Batching (and Modularization Efforts in General)

I think this is a great initiative. Not only are you giving a reminder about the need to implement new features in a modular and pluggable way, but you are also providing a real example with an already implemented not in the best way feature, to show the steps to follow in the right direction

[DISCUSS] RFC: OQL Queries Throttling

Hi there, Here you have an RFC for "OQL Queries Throttling": https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Throttling+of+OQL+queries Comments are very welcome. Thanks! Alberto

Re: Questions about conserve-sockets and WAN replication

:47 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Cc: Alberto Gomez Subject: Re: Questions about conserve-sockets and WAN replication Alberto, As you point out, the recommendation to use `conserve-sockets=false` in WAN configurations already appears in at least three places in the Geode User Guide. We can insert

Re: Questions about conserve-sockets and WAN replication

21 1:05 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Questions about conserve-sockets and WAN replication Alberto, I recently updated some of the descriptions regarding conserve-sockets. Please check out this PR and see if it addresses any of your concerns. https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/6516 On

Re: [INFO] Apache Geode 1.14.0 Release Manager

://github.com/apache/geode/pull/6526 [2] https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/6495 From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 8:08 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: [INFO] Apache Geode 1.14.0 Release Manager Hi Naba, Can you please provide some information

Re: Pending review from some code owners for PR linked to GEODE-9369: Command to copy region entries from a WAN site to another

Hi, Friendly reminder about pending reviews of some code owners for this PR. Thanks, Alberto From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 1:52 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Pending review from some code owners for PR linked to GEODE-9369: Command

Pending review from some code owners for PR linked to GEODE-9369: Command to copy region entries from a WAN site to another

Hi, The following PR https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/6601 has received the approval from several code owners but there are still some code owners' reviews pending. Could those that have not yet reviewed it, please, have a look? Thanks in advance, Alberto

Request for review of PR: GEODE-9408: Avoid duplicate events sent by Serial Gateway Sender when group-transaction-events is true

Hi, I would like to request the review of the following PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/6663 (GEODE-9408: Avoid duplicate events sent by Serial Gateway Sender when group-transaction-events is true). Thanks in advance, Alberto

Re: ParallelGatewaySenderQueue$BatchRemovalThread prints NPE

I think I finally caught it: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/6683 Alberto From: Kirk Lund Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 7:19 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: ParallelGatewaySenderQueue$BatchRemovalThread prints NPE Can someone who has been working on

Questions about conserve-sockets and WAN replication

Hi, The Geode documentation states the following about conserve-sockets and WAN deployments in [1]: "WAN deployments increase the messaging demands on a Geode system. To avoid hangs related to WAN messaging, always set `conserve-sockets=false` for Geode members that participate in a WAN

Re: [INFO] Apache Geode 1.14.0 Release Manager

Hi Naba, Can you please provide some information about how the 1.14 release is going and if is there any planned date for it? Thanks in advance, Alberto From: Nabarun Nag Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 5:27 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [INFO] Apache

Re: June Community Meeting

Hi all, Just a short note to inform you that we have added some more information in the Wiki page about the topic we plan to present in the meeting: * Title: "Servers waiting indefinitely for a reply" * Summary: If a packet is lost between servers, multiple threads get stuck and

Re: Question about the write-buffer-size parameter when creating a disk store

_____ From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 8:51 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Question about the write-buffer-size parameter when creating a disk store Hi, According to the Geode documentation, it is possible to set the write buffer size by using --write-buffer-size when creat

Question about the write-buffer-size parameter when creating a disk store

Hi, According to the Geode documentation, it is possible to set the write buffer size by using --write-buffer-size when creating a disk store [1]. Nevertheless, looking at the code, I have not seen that setting a value for that parameter has any effect. Does anybody know if I am correct or if

Re: Odg: Geode retry/acknowledge improvement

Please, disregard my last e-mail. I was having a parallel conversation by e-mail with Mario on this topic and sent the e-mail to the list by mistake. BR, Alberto From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 11:29 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re

Re: Odg: Geode retry/acknowledge improvement

You could answer to their latest e-mail to confirm that Darrel's suspicion could happen. Let's see if in that case they are willing to collaborate. Alberto From: Mario Ivanac Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 11:28 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Odg: Odg:

Re: DISCUSSION: Geode Native C++ 17 adoption

Hi, Here come my two cents. To me, upgrading to C++17 is a no brainer given that C++11 is quite old and C++17 has lots of new features, performance improvements and bug fixes. The only thing that could prevent us from doing so is having lots of users that are running the native client in a

[RFC PROPOSAL] Geode Command to replicate region data from one site to another connected via WAN

Hi all, In the following link you can find a proposal to introduce a Geode command to replicate region data between sites connected via WAN. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Geode+Command+to+replicate+region+data+from+one+site+to+another+connected+via+WAN As per RFC

Re: [DISCUSS] Monthly, synchronous community meetings

Hi, This idea sounds great to me. Have you thought about the videoconference platform to host these meetings? Best regards, Alberto From: Alexander Murmann Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 2:46 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSS] Monthly, synchronous

Re: CODEWATCHERS file effects

nd there was one test change in geode-wan so that one seems correct. I am looking for a solution to avoid adding watchers to draft PRs until they are taken out of draft mode, but it's non-trivial so I don't have an ETA yet. On 3/23/21, 12:08 PM, "Alberto Gomez" wrote:

Re: CODEWATCHERS file effects

and there was one test change in geode-wan so that one seems correct. I am looking for a solution to avoid adding watchers to draft PRs until they are taken out of draft mode, but it's non-trivial so I don't have an ETA yet. On 3/23/21, 12:08 PM, "Alberto Gomez" wrote: Hi, I hav

CODEWATCHERS file effects

Hi, I have recently added myself to the CODEWATCHERS file to be assigned as reviewer to PRs touching certain areas of the code but seems that I am being added to many more PRs that what I intended, even to Draft PRs. Is anybody else experiencing the same? Thanks, Alberto

[DISCUSS] CODEOWNERS mechanism feedback

Hi, It's been more than two months since the CODEOWNERS file has been in place to automatically add reviewers to pull requests. While we have seen the great benefit of having the experts in the matter being automatically assigned as reviewers to each pull request, I have the feeling that the

Re: Question about closing of all connections towards an endpoint in C++ native client

then terminate that connection. Continue until a pong response is received. -Jake > On Feb 24, 2021, at 4:36 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote: > > Hi, > > Running some tests with the C++ native client and looking at the code, I have > observed that when an error in a connection t

Question about closing of all connections towards an endpoint in C++ native client

Hi, Running some tests with the C++ native client and looking at the code, I have observed that when an error in a connection towards an endpoint (timeout, IO error) is detected, not only the faulty connection is closed but the endpoint is set to "not connected" status which eventually

Re: [DISCUSS] client/server communications and versioning

+1 This proposal makes a lot of sense. Besides, I recently sent a proposal to allow clients to communicate with servers in an older version in case the compatibility was not broken in the new version of the client ([1]). With your proposal, the aim of that RFC could also be achieved.

Re: Question about Map indexes

ons/1759476/database-index-not-used-if-the-where-criteria-is [2] https://geode.apache.org/docs/guide/19/developing/query_index/indexing_guidelines.html ________ From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 5:40 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Question about

Re: Question about Map indexes

it might matter. There may be other ways to execute the query but it would probably take a bit of reworking.. (ill check your pr to see if this is already addressed. Sorry if it is!) -Jason On 2/11/21, 8:28 AM, "Alberto Gomez" wrote: Hi, We have observed that creatin

Question about Map indexes

Hi, We have observed that creating an index on a Map field causes the creation of an index entry for every entry created in the region containing the Map, no matter if the Map field contained the key used in the index. Nevertheless, we would expect that only entries whose Map field contain the

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Add option to allow newer Geode clients to connect to older Geode servers

rsion. I think it's possible that the errors might show up only in log messages or corrupted values, and only if you are using whatever features are affected by a protocol change. -Dan ________ From: Alberto Gomez mailto:alberto.go...@est.tech>> S

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Add option to allow newer Geode clients to connect to older Geode servers

and adjusts accordingly. You can see this in ClientSideHandshakeImpl.handshakeWithServer. This will require a lot of testing to make sure that users won't see strange corruption related errors related to serialization changes. -Dan From: Alberto Gomez Sent

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Add option to allow newer Geode clients to connect to older Geode servers

Hi, I have updated the proposal in the RFC by adding Patrick's suggestion (if I have understood it correctly). Best regards, Alberto From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 10:41 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Add option

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Add option to allow newer Geode clients to connect to older Geode servers

that it is known to be compatible with? Then you wouldn’t even have to set the property. > On Jan 22, 2021, at 11:05 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote: > > Hi Geode devs, > > I have just published the following RFC in the Geode wiki: "Add option to > allow newer Geode clients to connect

[DISCUSS] RFC - Add option to allow newer Geode clients to connect to older Geode servers

Hi Geode devs, I have just published the following RFC in the Geode wiki: "Add option to allow newer Geode clients to connect to older Geode servers" https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Add+option+to+allow+newer+Geode+clients+to+connect+to+older+Geode+servers Could you please

Re: Question about -Dgemfire.GatewaySender.REMOVE_FROM_QUEUE_ON_EXCEPTION

never successfully processes a batch. There is a draft proposal for a callback that is a middle ground between these two behaviors, but it hasn't been implemented at this point. Barry From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 7:58 AM To: dev

Question about -Dgemfire.GatewaySender.REMOVE_FROM_QUEUE_ON_EXCEPTION

Hi, I have recently discovered the "gemfire.GatewaySender.REMOVE_FROM_QUEUE_ON_EXCEPTION" Geode System property that allows to change the default behavior of Gateway Senders so that when an exception occurs when handling an event, instead of proceeding with the rest of events in the batch and

Review for GEODE-8765: Fix NullPointerException when group-transaction-events and events in and not in transactions are sent.

Hi, Could I get some reviewers for PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/5829 Thanks in advance, /Alberto G.

Re: apache-geode-1.13.0.tgz not found in LGTM analysis

] https://github.com/apache/geode/blob/develop/dev-tools/release/set_versions.sh -Owen From: Alberto Gomez Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 2:39 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: apache-geode-1.13.0.tgz not found in LGTM analysis Hi, I am getting the following error in the LGTM analysis

apache-geode-1.13.0.tgz not found in LGTM analysis

Hi, I am getting the following error in the LGTM analysis of some pull requests since yesterday (for example https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/690): [2020-11-19 07:25:41] [build-err] + wget -O apache-geode.tgz http://mirror.transip.net/apache/geode/1.13.0/apache-geode-1.13.0.tgz

Review for "C++ native client Function.execute() with onServers does not throw exception if one of the servers goes down while executing the function."

Hi, Could somebody review PR https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/690 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-8693?filter=-2). Thanks, /Alberto G.

Re: Please review and contribute: draft of Nov 2020 Apache board report

Hi Karen, According to the membership data I'd say the Committer-to-PMC ratio is closer to 2:1 than to 7:4. Alberto From: Karen Miller Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 8:25 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Please review and contribute: draft of Nov 2020

Re: PR process and etiquette

Hi there, Here come my 2 cents. @Udo Kohlmeyer, thanks for your proposals to make this community better, and also for your willingness to get feedback from people who are new to the community. In my experience, one of the tricky parts working in the community is

Re: PR process and etiquette

+1 to draft PRs. By the way @Blake Bender, it's me the one having the draft PR for GEODE-8318. Alberto G. From: Blake Bender Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 2:28 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: PR process and etiquette +1

Re: [Discussion] - ClassLoaderService RFC proposal

Nice proposal, Udo. Here come some questions: Is the ClassLoader isolation RFC implemented? I have not seen any references to it in the doc or code. To me this RFC seems like a part of the ClassLoader isolation RFC as, without it, the original one would not work completely. Is this right? If

Review needed for PR "Different behavior in transactions on partitioned regions between creating the region with a parallel gateway sender vs altering the region to add the parallel gateway sender"

Hi Geode devs, I'd a appreciate some reviews for PR https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/5476 related to GEODE-8455 "Different behavior in transactions on partitioned regions between creating the region with a parallel gateway sender vs altering the region to add the parallel gateway sender".

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped

e enqueued in the secondary queue, there is no need to add into tmpDroppedEvents at all. To me, it should be only used for limited events to be queued. Regards, Eric From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 12:02 PM To: dev@geode.

Re: [Proposal] - RFC etiquette

Hi Geode Devs, First of all, Udo, thanks for your proposal. I am all up for what you are aiming at: "better round out each RFC. Causing less delays later in the process and allowing all community members to actively participate in the review process regardless of technical skill level."

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped

ry queue, there is no need to add into > tmpDroppedEvents at all. To me, it should be only used for limited events > to be queued. > > Regards, > Eric > ____ > From: Alberto Gomez > Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 12:02 PM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Su

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped

From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 12:02 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped Thanks for your comments, Eric. Limiting the size of the queue would be a simple

Re: [DISCUSS] RFC - Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped

not unbound? Regards, Eric ____ From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 8:24 AM To: geode Subject: [DISCUSS] RFC - Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped Hi, I have published a new RFC in the Apach

[DISCUSS] RFC - Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped

Hi, I have published a new RFC in the Apache Geode wiki with the following title: "Avoid the queueing of dropped events by the primary gateway sender when the gateway sender is stopped".

Re: Question about gateway sender stopped and memory consumption

disk. If that's not currently true, > then it seems like a good direction might be to make tmpDroppedEvents use a > durable queue of some sort that overflows to disk. > > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:33 AM Alberto Gomez > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We have obs

Re: Question about gateway sender stopped and memory consumption

at 10:33 AM Alberto Gomez wrote: > Hi, > > We have observed that when a gateway sender is stopped in a site, all the > events received while it is stopped are stored in the > 'AbstractGatewaySender.tmpDroppedEvents' queue of the primary sender. The > elements of this queue ar

Question about gateway sender stopped and memory consumption

Hi, We have observed that when a gateway sender is stopped in a site, all the events received while it is stopped are stored in the 'AbstractGatewaySender.tmpDroppedEvents' queue of the primary sender. The elements of this queue are not removed from this queue until the sender is started back

Re: Fate of master branch

I agree also on removing the master branch. As a relatively new member of the community it's been a source of confusion to me when looking at what is said in the wiki about it (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Versioning+and+Branching) and comparing it with the actual

Re: Successful build on windows

Hi Kirk, I build on Ubuntu 18.02 and I occasionally see the partial stack traces you mentioned on geode-wan:tests you mentioned. So it is not just a Windows thing. Never figured out what they provoked them and neither how to get them consistently. BR, Alberto

Re: Reviewers for GEODE-8231: C++ native client keeps trying to connect to down cache server hosting a partitioned region

Hi, I have no complete reviews yet. Any volunteers? Thanks, Alberto From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 1:31 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Reviewers for GEODE-8231: C++ native client keeps trying to connect to down cache server hosting

Heap memory used by gateway sender queues way above configured limit after server restart

Hi, I have found an issue with heap memory consumed by gateway sender queues way above the configured limit after a server is restarted (on the restarted server). The problem is described in the following ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-8278 I would highly appreciate some

Reviewers for GEODE-8231: C++ native client keeps trying to connect to down cache server hosting a partitioned region

Hi, Can someone please review my PR about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-8231 (C++ native client keeps trying to connect to down cache server hosting a partitioned region)? Here is the link to the PR: https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/615 Thanks, /Alberto G.

Re: About Geode rolling downgrade

Šalje: Alberto Gomez Poslano: 14. svibnja 2020. 14:45 Prima: geode Predmet: Re: About Geode rolling downgrade Hi, I friendly reminder to the community about this request for feedback. Thanks, -Alberto G. From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Thursday, May 7

Re: Problem in rolling upgrade since 1.12

: Thursday, June 11, 2020 1:53 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Problem in rolling upgrade since 1.12 Ernie made us a ticket for this issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-8240 On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:59 PM Alberto Gomez wrote: > Hi Ernie, > > I have seen this pro

Re: Problem in rolling upgrade since 1.12

t apply’s check…. Also these tests pass on develop, would you be able to check against the latest and update the diff? I’m very interested in reproducing the issue you have observed. Thanks, Ernie From: Alberto Gomez Reply-To: "dev@geode.apache.org" Date: Monday, June 8, 2020

Re: Problem in rolling upgrade since 1.12

Hi, I attach a diff for the modified test case in case you would like to use it to check the problem I mentioned. BR, Alberto From: Alberto Gomez Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2020 4:06 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Problem in rolling upgrade since 1.12 Hi

Problem in rolling upgrade since 1.12

Hi, I have observed that since version 1.12 rolling upgrades to future versions leave the first upgraded locator "as if" it was still on version 1.12. This is the output from "list members" before starting the upgrade from version 1.12: Name | Id |

Re: CI concourse checks on a PR not triggered

/pipelines/apache-develop-pr/jobs/Build/builds/7594 Unfortunately the PR pipeline is unable to post statuses to the PR when there is a conflict. Please rebase your PR branch to latest develop to clear this up. On 5/24/20, 11:39 PM, "Alberto Gomez" wrote: Hi, Since l

CI concourse checks on a PR not triggered

Hi, Since last Friday, the concourse checks for the following PR are not being triggered: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4928 I have tried to launch them by pushing empty commits but have not been successful Could anybody give me a hand? Thanks in advance, -Alberto G.

  1   2   >