On 17 Jun 2011, at 13:49, Mircea Markus wrote:
>
>> But yes, there is no reason why we can't replace this with RPC as per
>> Distribution, however I think we do need a streaming solution - not just for
>> replication but distribution as well. As such I'd only want to re-implement
>> this bit
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 16:46 +0200, Bela Ban wrote:
>
> On 6/1/11 4:21 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> > Hi Bela,
> >
> > 2011/6/1 Bela Ban:
> >> We currently use JGroups' partial state transfer to transfer individual
> >> caches from one Infinispan instance to another.
> >>
> >> Since I got rid of pa
On 17 Jun 2011, at 14:51, Bela Ban wrote:
>
>
> On 6/17/11 2:49 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
>
>
>> Now this might sound a bit too radical but do we really need REPLICATED mode?
>> This is not fully brewed, but if e.g. we set numOwners = Integer.MAX_INTEGER
>> the cluster is effectively in repli
On 6/17/11 2:49 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
> Now this might sound a bit too radical but do we really need REPLICATED mode?
> This is not fully brewed, but if e.g. we set numOwners = Integer.MAX_INTEGER
> the cluster is effectively in replicated mode, so can't we just drop the
> REPLICATION enti
On 9 Jun 2011, at 15:26, Manik Surtani wrote:
> We use partial state transfer not to generate partial state per cache, but
> the entire state per cache, but since we have > 1 cache sharing a given
> JGroups channel, as far as JGroups in concerned this *is* partial state of a
> node. I.e., th
whatever we come up with for a new implementation of state transfer,
I'll add partial state transfer back into JGroups 3, so we don't need to
make these changes immediately. Later, when nobody uses partial state
transfer, we can still drop it...
On 6/9/11 4:26 PM, Manik Surtani wrote:
> We use
We use partial state transfer not to generate partial state per cache, but the
entire state per cache, but since we have > 1 cache sharing a given JGroups
channel, as far as JGroups in concerned this *is* partial state of a node.
I.e., the state of just 1 cache on a channel, not all the caches.
On 6/1/11 6:05 PM, Mircea Markus wrote:
>
Why are we actually using JGroups' state transfer with replication, but
use our own state transfer with distribution ?
>>>
>>> I don't know, but guess it's because each node has a different set of
>>> keys so no node has the same state as anothe
>>> Why are we actually using JGroups' state transfer with replication, but
>>> use our own state transfer with distribution ?
>>
>> I don't know, but guess it's because each node has a different set of
>> keys so no node has the same state as another ?
>
> You could still use JGroups state tran
On 6/1/11 4:21 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> Hi Bela,
>
> 2011/6/1 Bela Ban:
>> We currently use JGroups' partial state transfer to transfer individual
>> caches from one Infinispan instance to another.
>>
>> Since I got rid of partial state transfer in JGroups 3.0, and don't like
>> to add it bac
Hi Bela,
2011/6/1 Bela Ban :
> We currently use JGroups' partial state transfer to transfer individual
> caches from one Infinispan instance to another.
>
> Since I got rid of partial state transfer in JGroups 3.0, and don't like
> to add it back, I'd like to know whether this is still needed.
>
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
