Yes, the backends were deployed in cluster configuration (the
configurations are available in the appendix).
I'll make a change to the doc to make sure this is reflected properly.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> Were the backends (zookeeper, etcd) deployed in a cluster con
Were the backends (zookeeper, etcd) deployed in a cluster configuration? I
can't quite tell from the doc.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:58 AM, John Schwarz wrote:
> You're right Joshua.
>
> Tooz HEAD points to 0f4e1198fdcbd6a29d77c67d105d201ed0fbd9e0.
>
> With regards to etcd and zookeeper's versio
You're right Joshua.
Tooz HEAD points to 0f4e1198fdcbd6a29d77c67d105d201ed0fbd9e0.
With regards to etcd and zookeeper's versions, they are:
zookeeper-3.4.5+28-1.cdh4.7.1.p0.13.el6.x86_64,
etcd-2.2.5-2.el7.0.1.x86_64.
John.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Th
Hi John,
Thanks for gathering this info,
Do you have the versions of the backend that were used here
(particularly relevant for etcd which has a new release pretty frequently).
It'd be useful to capture that info also :)
John Schwarz wrote:
Hi everyone,
Following [1], a few of us sat down
Hi everyone,
Following [1], a few of us sat down during the last day of the Austin
Summit and discussed the possibility of adding formal support for
Tooz, specifically for the locking mechanism it provides. The
conclusion we reached was that benchmarks should be done to show if
and how Tooz affect
