On 9 Jul 2013, at 11:51, Pedro Ruivo wrote:
> hi,
>
> On 07/09/2013 09:32 AM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think we all agree that Karsten's file cache store is a good base
>> replacement for the current file cache store, particularly for caches with
>> relatively small keys, or no
On 9 Jul 2013, at 12:44, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> +1 to integrate it.
>
> Also, +1 on Radim's comment to remove the existing one: just yesterday
> I had a problem with Infinispan blowing up with weird Externalizer
> exceptions because I was attempting to activate data from a
> FilesystemCacheSt
On 9 Jul 2013, at 16:37, Randall Hauch wrote:
> Can you describe this process, especially for how it can be accomplished with
> a single (local) cache?
>
> A migration mechanism is absolutely a must.
+1.
> There are ModeShape users that have used the FCS simply because it suits
> their need
Do we need to change something in pom.xml as well so that it's included
automatically in the next release?
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
> Thanks for updating the release doc :-)
>
> On 5 Jul 2013, at 10:02, Tristan Tarrant wrote:
>
> > Dearl all,
> >
> > I have release
Hi guys,
I need your help to find what is the objective of this
WriteSkewTest.testWriteSkewWithOnlyPut.
Is it to test the write skew check in Local mode caches?
Cheers,
Pedro Ruivo
___
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org
https:/
On 9 Jul 2013, at 16:44, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> I would agree with you that this should be a priority, but keep in
> mind that just migrating data from a CacheStore to another won't be
> enough: as I pointed out in my previous mail, binary encoding also
> changed, making it impossible to deser
On 10 Jul 2013, at 09:24, Radim Vansa wrote:
> | > | From: "Galder Zamarreño"
> | > | Shall we keep the current FCS implementation, deprecate it, and get rid
> | > | of it
> | > | in the next minor/major version? Some users might have data stored in
> the
> | > | current FCS and would be quite
It doesn't seem to test anything at all.
ConditionalOperationsConcurrentWriteSkewTest runs concurrent update tests much
nicer - extend it to a local cache test as well?
On 10 Jul 2013, at 13:07, Pedro Ruivo wrote:
> I need your help to find what is the objective of this
> WriteSkewTest.testWr
On 9 Jul 2013, at 20:22, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>> ConcurrentMap adds a load of pitfalls which should not be there: all
>>> the methods whose result is depending on the node they are run on.
>>>
>>> I know we make it clear in javadocs and several warnings on the doc,
>>> but experience tells t
The test is definitely wrong because the locks are only acquired during
the prepare that gives an window of opportunity to the write skew happens.
On other hand, I'm pretty sure that we have a bug in local mode write
skew + optimistic caches (it is performing the write skew in the put and
not i
On 10 Jul 2013, at 13:34, Pedro Ruivo wrote:
> The test is definitely wrong because the locks are only acquired during
> the prepare that gives an window of opportunity to the write skew happens.
>
> On other hand, I'm pretty sure that we have a bug in local mode write
> skew + optimistic cac
On 10 July 2013 11:32, Mircea Markus wrote:
>
> On 9 Jul 2013, at 20:22, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>
ConcurrentMap adds a load of pitfalls which should not be there: all
the methods whose result is depending on the node they are run on.
I know we make it clear in javadocs and sev
This is the requested stacktrace; it's easy to reproduce in case you need it:
- checkout Hibernate Search at tag 4.3.0.Final and run
org.hibernate.search.infinispan.StoredIndexTest
- switch to commit id dfc8bff and run the same test again
Cheers,
Sanne
org.hibernate.search.SearchException: HSEA
On 9 Jul 2013, at 19:06, ben.cotton wrote:
> /> This would only affect the Cache internals (use two DataContainers instead
> of one). Users still won't have direct access to the L1 cache.
> /
>
> This comment prompts me to ask the Infinispan DEV team if they believe the
> following potential us
On 9 Jul 2013, at 13:48, Pedro Ruivo wrote:
> On 07/09/2013 11:46 AM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Pedro Ruivo wrote:
>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> re: ISPN-2840, ISPN-3235, ISPN-3236
>>> short: transaction isolation in repeatable read
>>>
>>> Dan came up with an ide
Just checked out the JIRA and GIT entries. This is very encouraging!
Looking forward to deep-diving, once the extended statistics capability is
ready.
In general, yes, I am /keenly/ interested in any/all API mechanisms that
empower me to configure/designate/observe/meter the specifics of how
On 9 Jul 2013, at 14:20, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah it's quite sad protostuff does not live up to the expectation :(
>>>
>>> Compared to the google libs, streamlike is definitely a nice approach but I
>>> feel a bit sad to have to use marshallers and the read/write pattern.
>>> Havin
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
>
> On 21 May 2013, at 17:09, Dan Berindei wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't want to deprecate CCL, I think it definitely has a purpose -
> at least in invalidation mode.
> The only use case I'm aware of for invalidation is 2nd level cache and I
> don'
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Dan Berindei wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Sanne Grinovero
> wrote:
>>
>> On 3 July 2013 10:26, Dan Berindei wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Sanne Grinovero
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 2 July 2013 17:24, Dan Berindei w
On Jul 10, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Dan Berindei wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
>
> On 21 May 2013, at 17:09, Dan Berindei wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't want to deprecate CCL, I think it definitely has a purpose - at
> > least in invalidation mode.
> The only use
change of plans
I noticed that the write skew check is not supported by pessimistic
caches, so the test is totally invalid, because we have 10 threads
perform a put operation, but the key is locked only in prepare (and the
write skew check is performed).
I'm gonna change the test to use the IG
Hi,
Re: https://gist.github.com/galderz/4074dff7bc26243a2fdd
Has anyone seen this on their machines?
Cheers,
--
Galder Zamarreño
gal...@redhat.com
twitter.com/galderz
Project Lead, Escalante
http://escalante.io
Engineer, Infinispan
http://infinispan.org
__
On 10 Jul 2013, at 18:24, Pedro Ruivo wrote:
> change of plans
>
> I noticed that the write skew check is not supported by pessimistic
> caches,
doh, of course not! :-)
> so the test is totally invalid, because we have 10 threads
> perform a put operation, but the key is locked only in prepa
On Wed 2013-07-10 16:18, Mircea Markus wrote:
>
> On 9 Jul 2013, at 14:20, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>> Ah it's quite sad protostuff does not live up to the expectation :(
> >>>
> >>> Compared to the google libs, streamlike is definitely a nice approach but
> >>> I feel a bit sad to
24 matches
Mail list logo
