Re: Functional specification

I've been looking at the zeromq project. It's a precursor to aeron. On 11 Jul 2015 3:01 am, "Anthony Baker" wrote: > Sounds good! It will be interesting to see if the Aeron project gets any > traction. > > Anthony > > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 8:59 AM, Bruce Schuchardt > wrote: > > > > There are a

Re: Functional specification

Sounds good! It will be interesting to see if the Aeron project gets any traction. Anthony > On Jul 10, 2015, at 8:59 AM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > > There are a lot of alternatives for the UDP transport service. I put JGroups > in the functional spec because it is a mature product that is

Re: Functional specification

There are a lot of alternatives for the UDP transport service. I put JGroups in the functional spec because it is a mature product that is closely aligned with how Geode/GemFire works and will cause minimal behavioral changes and no configuration changes. It looks like Aeron has had 1 release

Re: Functional specification

Hi, I have no idea how applicable or otherwise this may be. Hawq advertises it's 'interconnect', which is promoted as a high performance, reliable, UDP based transport. David. On 10 July 2015 at 16:07, Anthony Baker wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > Any thoughts on whether the Aeron project [1] [2] from

Re: Functional specification

Hi Bruce, Any thoughts on whether the Aeron project [1] [2] from Martin Thompson et al would prove useful for the reliable UDP transport layer? Not sure what level of performance you need from that channel. Anthony [1] https://github.com/real-logic/Aeron