Geode client against Geode server on EAAS

[Guy Turkenits]

Hi team

I am working with geode 1.4 and trying to connect from client outside of EAAS 
to Geode server on EAAS.
I am managed to connect to the external ip of the locator (10.xxx.xxx.xxx) but 
when the client gets the list of geode servers to work with it gets it with the 
internal ip (192.xx.xx.xx) of the EAAS, so my client cant connect to geode 
servers.

Is there a way to overcome this?

Thanks,
Guy
This email and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential 
and subject to the Amdocs Email Terms of Service, which you may review at 
https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-terms-of-service 

Re: [DISCUSS] include geode-benchmarks in 1.12 release

[Dan Smith]

We are supposed to be including all of the source necessary to test Geode
in the source release [1] - I think that would include benchmarks as well.

I don't really see any compelling reason *not* to include the benchmarks,
let's go ahead and get them into our source release!

[1]
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what-must-every-release-contain

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:26 PM Owen Nichols  wrote:

> +1 for no changes
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:57 PM Jacob Barrett  wrote:
>
> > We can live in areas of gray that don’t require any changes. Nobody is
> > asking for benchmarks so let’s not do work to add them. Nobody is
> > complaining they CI is included so let’s not do work to remove them. Is
> it
> > ideal, meh...
> >
> > > On Jan 15, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Mark Hanson  wrote:
> > >
> > > Just my two cents.
> > >
> > > I think that we should probably strip CI into a separate repo. The key
> > indicator is that if something were wrong in the CI yaml, would I hold a
> > release for that? I think no. So that suggests to me it is a separate
> > thing. Same goes for benchmarks. If we were failing a benchmark I would
> be
> > concerned, but if the script were broken, would I hold the release? I
> think
> > no as well.
> > >
> > > I think that says that the CI code should also be a separate repo.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mark
> > >
> > >> On Jan 14, 2020, at 10:21 PM, Jacob Barrett 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Until someone outside of the geode ci community is asking for it I
> just
> > don’t see utility in going through the motions of making a release for
> it.
> > >>
> >  On Jan 14, 2020, at 10:13 PM, Owen Nichols 
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> The source is already public, so on some level a source release is
> no
> > different from a git tag.  Benchmarks has matured enough that I think it
> > makes sense to at least start branching and tagging the geode-benchmarks
> > repo to capture exactly what was used in that Geode release.
> > >>>
> > >>> Others in the dev and user community may find the benchmarks useful
> in
> > other ways than we use them.  While our focus for CI is on tuning for
> > repeatability, someone else might just want a load generator to break in
> a
> > new cluster or get some rough numbers.  Some might want to get under the
> > hood and tinker and tune, or contribute their own benchmarks, with the
> > understanding that it’s not a turnkey or standalone product, but a tool
> > that requires getting your hands dirty.
> > >>>
> > >>> Would a “1 page” readme with a few tips on “how to run on a laptop”
> be
> > enough to let other interested contributors help get geode-benchmarks to
> a
> > “better state”?
> > >>>
> >  On Jan 14, 2020, at 9:38 PM, Jacob Barrett 
> > wrote:
> > 
> >  I don’t think the benchmarks provide any material benefit to a user
> > in their current state. They are heavily tuned for our CI process which
> > relies on very beefy machines. Usage on other hardware will require more
> > tuning. I don’t think it’s worth putting the source in the release until
> > they are in a better state.
> > 
> >  -Jake
> > 
> > 
> > >> On Jan 14, 2020, at 4:14 PM, Dan Smith  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:11 PM Owen Nichols  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I believe the desire is to include the source code for
> > geode-benchmarks as
> > >> part of the official geode release, much like how we include
> > geode-examples.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Oh! I thought you meant running the benchmarks in the release
> > pipeline - I
> > > think last release we were running them but decided they were too
> > flaky to
> > > use.
> > >
> > > +1 to including the benchmark source in the source release.
> > >
> > > -Dan
> > >>>
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] include geode-benchmarks in 1.12 release

[Owen Nichols]

The language “sufficient for a user to build and test the release” suggest to 
me that "./gradlew test” should work (i.e. don’t release *just* src).  It would 
be a slippery slope to construe this guideline as a mandate to include any and 
all tools, scripts, etc that may ever have been used in conjunction with 
validating a release.

> On Jan 16, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Dan Smith  wrote:
> 
> We are supposed to be including all of the source necessary to test Geode
> in the source release [1] - I think that would include benchmarks as well.
> 
> I don't really see any compelling reason *not* to include the benchmarks,
> let's go ahead and get them into our source release!
> 
> [1]
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what-must-every-release-contain
> 
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:26 PM Owen Nichols  wrote:
> 
>> +1 for no changes
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:57 PM Jacob Barrett  wrote:
>> 
>>> We can live in areas of gray that don’t require any changes. Nobody is
>>> asking for benchmarks so let’s not do work to add them. Nobody is
>>> complaining they CI is included so let’s not do work to remove them. Is
>> it
>>> ideal, meh...
>>> 
 On Jan 15, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Mark Hanson  wrote:
 
 Just my two cents.
 
 I think that we should probably strip CI into a separate repo. The key
>>> indicator is that if something were wrong in the CI yaml, would I hold a
>>> release for that? I think no. So that suggests to me it is a separate
>>> thing. Same goes for benchmarks. If we were failing a benchmark I would
>> be
>>> concerned, but if the script were broken, would I hold the release? I
>> think
>>> no as well.
 
 I think that says that the CI code should also be a separate repo.
 
 Thanks,
 Mark
 
> On Jan 14, 2020, at 10:21 PM, Jacob Barrett 
>>> wrote:
> 
> Until someone outside of the geode ci community is asking for it I
>> just
>>> don’t see utility in going through the motions of making a release for
>> it.
> 
>>> On Jan 14, 2020, at 10:13 PM, Owen Nichols 
>>> wrote:
>> 
>> The source is already public, so on some level a source release is
>> no
>>> different from a git tag.  Benchmarks has matured enough that I think it
>>> makes sense to at least start branching and tagging the geode-benchmarks
>>> repo to capture exactly what was used in that Geode release.
>> 
>> Others in the dev and user community may find the benchmarks useful
>> in
>>> other ways than we use them.  While our focus for CI is on tuning for
>>> repeatability, someone else might just want a load generator to break in
>> a
>>> new cluster or get some rough numbers.  Some might want to get under the
>>> hood and tinker and tune, or contribute their own benchmarks, with the
>>> understanding that it’s not a turnkey or standalone product, but a tool
>>> that requires getting your hands dirty.
>> 
>> Would a “1 page” readme with a few tips on “how to run on a laptop”
>> be
>>> enough to let other interested contributors help get geode-benchmarks to
>> a
>>> “better state”?
>> 
>>> On Jan 14, 2020, at 9:38 PM, Jacob Barrett 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I don’t think the benchmarks provide any material benefit to a user
>>> in their current state. They are heavily tuned for our CI process which
>>> relies on very beefy machines. Usage on other hardware will require more
>>> tuning. I don’t think it’s worth putting the source in the release until
>>> they are in a better state.
>>> 
>>> -Jake
>>> 
>>> 
> On Jan 14, 2020, at 4:14 PM, Dan Smith  wrote:
 
 On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:11 PM Owen Nichols >> 
>>> wrote:
 
> I believe the desire is to include the source code for
>>> geode-benchmarks as
> part of the official geode release, much like how we include
>>> geode-examples.
> 
 
 Oh! I thought you meant running the benchmarks in the release
>>> pipeline - I
 think last release we were running them but decided they were too
>>> flaky to
 use.
 
 +1 to including the benchmark source in the source release.
 
 -Dan
>> 
 
>>> 
>> 

LocatorUDPSecurityDUnitTest started failing

[Kirk Lund]

I suspect there may be a recent membership/distribution/locator or even
security change that has caused LocatorUDPSecurityDUnitTest to start
failing with a suspect string.

Any ideas what might have broken this? I'm busy working on other dunit
tests so it'll be a while before I can look into this.

org.apache.geode.distributed.LocatorUDPSecurityDUnitTest >
testStartTwoLocators FAILED
java.lang.AssertionError: Suspicious strings were written to the log
during this run.
Fix the strings or use IgnoredException.addIgnoredException to ignore.
---
Found suspect string in log4j at line 2539

[error 2020/01/16 09:59:33.406 GMT  tid=766] Exception deserializing message
payload: [dst: 2c5d023e5048:41002, src: 2c5d023e5048:41001 (2
headers), size=1324 bytes, flags=OOB|DONT_BUNDLE|NO_FC|SKIP_BARRIER]
java.lang.Exception: Message id is -150
at
org.apache.geode.distributed.internal.membership.gms.messenger.JGroupsMessenger.readEncryptedMessage(JGroupsMessenger.java:1143)
at
org.apache.geode.distributed.internal.membership.gms.messenger.JGroupsMessenger.readJGMessage(JGroupsMessenger.java:1044)
at
org.apache.geode.distributed.internal.membership.gms.messenger.JGroupsMessenger$JGroupsReceiver.receive(JGroupsMessenger.java:1297)
at
org.apache.geode.distributed.internal.membership.gms.messenger.JGroupsMessenger$JGroupsReceiver.receive(JGroupsMessenger.java:1266)
at org.jgroups.JChannel.invokeCallback(JChannel.java:816)
at org.jgroups.JChannel.up(JChannel.java:741)
at org.jgroups.stack.ProtocolStack.up(ProtocolStack.java:1030)
at org.jgroups.protocols.FRAG2.up(FRAG2.java:165)
at org.jgroups.protocols.FlowControl.up(FlowControl.java:390)
at org.jgroups.protocols.UNICAST3.deliverMessage(UNICAST3.java:1077)
at org.jgroups.protocols.UNICAST3.handleDataReceived(UNICAST3.java:792)
at org.jgroups.protocols.UNICAST3.up(UNICAST3.java:433)
at
org.apache.geode.distributed.internal.membership.gms.messenger.StatRecorder.up(StatRecorder.java:72)
at
org.apache.geode.distributed.internal.membership.gms.messenger.AddressManager.up(AddressManager.java:70)
at org.jgroups.protocols.TP.passMessageUp(TP.java:1658)
at org.jgroups.protocols.TP$SingleMessageHandler.run(TP.java:1876)
at org.jgroups.util.DirectExecutor.execute(DirectExecutor.java:10)
at org.jgroups.protocols.TP.handleSingleMessage(TP.java:1789)
at org.jgroups.protocols.TP.receive(TP.java:1714)
at
org.apache.geode.distributed.internal.membership.gms.messenger.Transport.receive(Transport.java:159)
at org.jgroups.protocols.UDP$PacketReceiver.run(UDP.java:701)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
Caused by: javax.crypto.BadPaddingException: Given final block not
properly padded. Such issues can arise if a bad key is used during
decryption.
at com.sun.crypto.provider.CipherCore.unpad(CipherCore.java:975)
at
com.sun.crypto.provider.CipherCore.fillOutputBuffer(CipherCore.java:1056)
at com.sun.crypto.provider.CipherCore.doFinal(CipherCore.java:853)
at com.sun.crypto.provider.AESCipher.engineDoFinal(AESCipher.java:446)
at javax.crypto.Cipher.doFinal(Cipher.java:2164)
at
org.apache.geode.distributed.internal.membership.gms.messenger.GMSEncryptionCipherPool.decryptBytes(GMSEncryptionCipherPool.java:69)
at
org.apache.geode.distributed.internal.membership.gms.messenger.GMSEncrypt.decryptData(GMSEncrypt.java:147)
at
org.apache.geode.distributed.internal.membership.gms.messenger.JGroupsMessenger.readEncryptedMessage(JGroupsMessenger.java:1121)
... 21 more

Re: [DISCUSS] include geode-benchmarks in 1.12 release

[Owen Nichols]

When voting on RC candidates, PMC members "are required to download the signed 
source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable 
on their own platform”.

If geode-benchmarks is included, that implies that an RC cannot be approved 
until reviewers can successfully run the benchmark suite from the 
geode-benchmarks source distribution.  Is that what we want?

Similarly, if CI is included, that seems to imply that an RC cannot be approved 
until reviewers can stand up their own pipeline from the geode/ci source 
distribution.  Is that what we want?

So far there doesn’t seem to be consensus on what to include in a Geode source 
release, but let’s keep in mind that anything we add to the release becomes an 
Act Of The Foundation and is held to a higher standard.  Apache makes a clear 
distinction between between development activity and official releases to the 
public.  Development activity is anything that should stay within the dev list. 
 Deploying CI pipelines and running Benchmarks seems like a prime example of 
things we’d be happy to help others in the community with on the dev list — but 
not something we would expect questions about on the user list.

> On Jan 16, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Dan Smith  wrote:
> 
> We are supposed to be including all of the source necessary to test Geode
> in the source release [1] - I think that would include benchmarks as well.
> 
> I don't really see any compelling reason *not* to include the benchmarks,
> let's go ahead and get them into our source release!
> 
> [1]
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what-must-every-release-contain
> 
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:26 PM Owen Nichols  wrote:
> 
>> +1 for no changes
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:57 PM Jacob Barrett  wrote:
>> 
>>> We can live in areas of gray that don’t require any changes. Nobody is
>>> asking for benchmarks so let’s not do work to add them. Nobody is
>>> complaining they CI is included so let’s not do work to remove them. Is
>> it
>>> ideal, meh...
>>> 
 On Jan 15, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Mark Hanson  wrote:
 
 Just my two cents.
 
 I think that we should probably strip CI into a separate repo. The key
>>> indicator is that if something were wrong in the CI yaml, would I hold a
>>> release for that? I think no. So that suggests to me it is a separate
>>> thing. Same goes for benchmarks. If we were failing a benchmark I would
>> be
>>> concerned, but if the script were broken, would I hold the release? I
>> think
>>> no as well.
 
 I think that says that the CI code should also be a separate repo.
 
 Thanks,
 Mark
 
> On Jan 14, 2020, at 10:21 PM, Jacob Barrett 
>>> wrote:
> 
> Until someone outside of the geode ci community is asking for it I
>> just
>>> don’t see utility in going through the motions of making a release for
>> it.
> 
>>> On Jan 14, 2020, at 10:13 PM, Owen Nichols 
>>> wrote:
>> 
>> The source is already public, so on some level a source release is
>> no
>>> different from a git tag.  Benchmarks has matured enough that I think it
>>> makes sense to at least start branching and tagging the geode-benchmarks
>>> repo to capture exactly what was used in that Geode release.
>> 
>> Others in the dev and user community may find the benchmarks useful
>> in
>>> other ways than we use them.  While our focus for CI is on tuning for
>>> repeatability, someone else might just want a load generator to break in
>> a
>>> new cluster or get some rough numbers.  Some might want to get under the
>>> hood and tinker and tune, or contribute their own benchmarks, with the
>>> understanding that it’s not a turnkey or standalone product, but a tool
>>> that requires getting your hands dirty.
>> 
>> Would a “1 page” readme with a few tips on “how to run on a laptop”
>> be
>>> enough to let other interested contributors help get geode-benchmarks to
>> a
>>> “better state”?
>> 
>>> On Jan 14, 2020, at 9:38 PM, Jacob Barrett 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I don’t think the benchmarks provide any material benefit to a user
>>> in their current state. They are heavily tuned for our CI process which
>>> relies on very beefy machines. Usage on other hardware will require more
>>> tuning. I don’t think it’s worth putting the source in the release until
>>> they are in a better state.
>>> 
>>> -Jake
>>> 
>>> 
> On Jan 14, 2020, at 4:14 PM, Dan Smith  wrote:
 
 On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:11 PM Owen Nichols >> 
>>> wrote:
 
> I believe the desire is to include the source code for
>>> geode-benchmarks as
> part of the official geode release, much like how we include
>>> geode-examples.
> 
 
 Oh! I thought you meant running the benchmarks in the release
>>> pipeline - I
 think last release we were running them but decided they were too
>>> flaky to
 use.
 
 +1 to including t

Re: [DISCUSS] include geode-benchmarks in 1.12 release

[Dan Smith]

> If geode-benchmarks is included, that implies that an RC cannot be
approved until reviewers can successfully run the benchmark suite from the
geode-benchmarks source distribution.  Is that what we want?

I think it would be sufficient to run the tests of the benchmarks, eg
./gradlew test

> Deploying CI pipelines and running Benchmarks seems like a prime example
of things we’d be happy to help others in the community with on the dev
list — but not something we would expect questions about on the user list.

I think it would be valuable to share our benchmarks with the geode user
community. The benchmark framework itself (the harness module) is a fairly
generic benchmarking framework than can be used to benchmark anything that
can be spun up using java. The geode-benchmark module has geode benchmarks
that could be used for testing specific hardware, for example.

-Dan

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:37 PM Owen Nichols  wrote:

> When voting on RC candidates, PMC members "are required to download the
> signed source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting
> executable on their own platform”.
>
> If geode-benchmarks is included, that implies that an RC cannot be
> approved until reviewers can successfully run the benchmark suite from the
> geode-benchmarks source distribution.  Is that what we want?
>
> Similarly, if CI is included, that seems to imply that an RC cannot be
> approved until reviewers can stand up their own pipeline from the geode/ci
> source distribution.  Is that what we want?
>
> So far there doesn’t seem to be consensus on what to include in a Geode
> source release, but let’s keep in mind that anything we add to the release
> becomes an Act Of The Foundation and is held to a higher standard.  Apache
> makes a clear distinction between between development activity and official
> releases to the public.  Development activity is anything that should stay
> within the dev list.  Deploying CI pipelines and running Benchmarks seems
> like a prime example of things we’d be happy to help others in the
> community with on the dev list — but not something we would expect
> questions about on the user list.
>
> > On Jan 16, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Dan Smith  wrote:
> >
> > We are supposed to be including all of the source necessary to test Geode
> > in the source release [1] - I think that would include benchmarks as
> well.
> >
> > I don't really see any compelling reason *not* to include the benchmarks,
> > let's go ahead and get them into our source release!
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what-must-every-release-contain
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:26 PM Owen Nichols 
> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for no changes
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:57 PM Jacob Barrett 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We can live in areas of gray that don’t require any changes. Nobody is
> >>> asking for benchmarks so let’s not do work to add them. Nobody is
> >>> complaining they CI is included so let’s not do work to remove them. Is
> >> it
> >>> ideal, meh...
> >>>
>  On Jan 15, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Mark Hanson  wrote:
> 
>  Just my two cents.
> 
>  I think that we should probably strip CI into a separate repo. The key
> >>> indicator is that if something were wrong in the CI yaml, would I hold
> a
> >>> release for that? I think no. So that suggests to me it is a separate
> >>> thing. Same goes for benchmarks. If we were failing a benchmark I would
> >> be
> >>> concerned, but if the script were broken, would I hold the release? I
> >> think
> >>> no as well.
> 
>  I think that says that the CI code should also be a separate repo.
> 
>  Thanks,
>  Mark
> 
> > On Jan 14, 2020, at 10:21 PM, Jacob Barrett 
> >>> wrote:
> >
> > Until someone outside of the geode ci community is asking for it I
> >> just
> >>> don’t see utility in going through the motions of making a release for
> >> it.
> >
> >>> On Jan 14, 2020, at 10:13 PM, Owen Nichols 
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >> The source is already public, so on some level a source release is
> >> no
> >>> different from a git tag.  Benchmarks has matured enough that I think
> it
> >>> makes sense to at least start branching and tagging the
> geode-benchmarks
> >>> repo to capture exactly what was used in that Geode release.
> >>
> >> Others in the dev and user community may find the benchmarks useful
> >> in
> >>> other ways than we use them.  While our focus for CI is on tuning for
> >>> repeatability, someone else might just want a load generator to break
> in
> >> a
> >>> new cluster or get some rough numbers.  Some might want to get under
> the
> >>> hood and tinker and tune, or contribute their own benchmarks, with the
> >>> understanding that it’s not a turnkey or standalone product, but a tool
> >>> that requires getting your hands dirty.
> >>
> >> Would a “1 page” readme with a few tips on “how to run on a laptop”
> >> be
> >>> enough to let other inte

Re: [DISCUSS] include geode-benchmarks in 1.12 release

[Owen Nichols]

Geode PMC has 52 members.  If this were a vote, it looks like the results would 
have been:
+1: 2 (Anthony, Dan)
-1: 1 (Jake)

If the next release manager were to go ahead and put geode-benchmarks in the 
Geode 1.12.0 source release, at least 3 PMC members would need to be willing to 
vote +1.  So it sounds like we need a few more of the other 49 PMC members to 
weigh in on this discussion.  

To summarize so far:

Proposal:
- add a geode-benchmarks-n.n.n-src.tgz artifact to all Geode releases going 
forward, starting with 1.12.0

Arguments in favor:
- why not?
- it’s already public
- we should default to including all things
- it might be of interest to the user community
- it might encourage contributions back to further improve it
- it is required by CI, which is already included
- Apache mandates that source releases must include test code too

Arguments against:
- doing nothing is less work
- it will burden PMC members with additional work to validate and vote on RCs
- nobody outside the dev community has asked for it to be included
- maybe it’s not ready
- maybe it’s not documented well enough
- it’s not needed to use Geode
- Apache's legal separation between dev stuff and public release stuff
- legal or license review may be not have been conducted yet


> On Jan 16, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Dan Smith  wrote:
> 
>> If geode-benchmarks is included, that implies that an RC cannot be
> approved until reviewers can successfully run the benchmark suite from the
> geode-benchmarks source distribution.  Is that what we want?
> 
> I think it would be sufficient to run the tests of the benchmarks, eg
> ./gradlew test
> 
>> Deploying CI pipelines and running Benchmarks seems like a prime example
> of things we’d be happy to help others in the community with on the dev
> list — but not something we would expect questions about on the user list.
> 
> I think it would be valuable to share our benchmarks with the geode user
> community. The benchmark framework itself (the harness module) is a fairly
> generic benchmarking framework than can be used to benchmark anything that
> can be spun up using java. The geode-benchmark module has geode benchmarks
> that could be used for testing specific hardware, for example.
> 
> -Dan
> 
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:37 PM Owen Nichols  wrote:
> 
>> When voting on RC candidates, PMC members "are required to download the
>> signed source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting
>> executable on their own platform”.
>> 
>> If geode-benchmarks is included, that implies that an RC cannot be
>> approved until reviewers can successfully run the benchmark suite from the
>> geode-benchmarks source distribution.  Is that what we want?
>> 
>> Similarly, if CI is included, that seems to imply that an RC cannot be
>> approved until reviewers can stand up their own pipeline from the geode/ci
>> source distribution.  Is that what we want?
>> 
>> So far there doesn’t seem to be consensus on what to include in a Geode
>> source release, but let’s keep in mind that anything we add to the release
>> becomes an Act Of The Foundation and is held to a higher standard.  Apache
>> makes a clear distinction between between development activity and official
>> releases to the public.  Development activity is anything that should stay
>> within the dev list.  Deploying CI pipelines and running Benchmarks seems
>> like a prime example of things we’d be happy to help others in the
>> community with on the dev list — but not something we would expect
>> questions about on the user list.
>> 
>>> On Jan 16, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Dan Smith  wrote:
>>> 
>>> We are supposed to be including all of the source necessary to test Geode
>>> in the source release [1] - I think that would include benchmarks as
>> well.
>>> 
>>> I don't really see any compelling reason *not* to include the benchmarks,
>>> let's go ahead and get them into our source release!
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> 
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what-must-every-release-contain
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:26 PM Owen Nichols 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 +1 for no changes
 
 On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:57 PM Jacob Barrett 
>> wrote:
 
> We can live in areas of gray that don’t require any changes. Nobody is
> asking for benchmarks so let’s not do work to add them. Nobody is
> complaining they CI is included so let’s not do work to remove them. Is
 it
> ideal, meh...
> 
>> On Jan 15, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Mark Hanson  wrote:
>> 
>> Just my two cents.
>> 
>> I think that we should probably strip CI into a separate repo. The key
> indicator is that if something were wrong in the CI yaml, would I hold
>> a
> release for that? I think no. So that suggests to me it is a separate
> thing. Same goes for benchmarks. If we were failing a benchmark I would
 be
> concerned, but if the script were broken, would I hold the release? I
 think
> no as well.
>> 
>

Re: [DISCUSS] include geode-benchmarks in 1.12 release

[Jacob Barrett]

I would characterize my vote as 0. I really don’t care either way. Just sharing 
I think they have no value in a release.

> On Jan 16, 2020, at 6:08 PM, Owen Nichols  wrote:
> 
> Geode PMC has 52 members.  If this were a vote, it looks like the results 
> would have been:
> +1: 2 (Anthony, Dan)
> -1: 1 (Jake)
> 
> If the next release manager were to go ahead and put geode-benchmarks in the 
> Geode 1.12.0 source release, at least 3 PMC members would need to be willing 
> to vote +1.  So it sounds like we need a few more of the other 49 PMC members 
> to weigh in on this discussion.  
> 
> To summarize so far:
> 
> Proposal:
> - add a geode-benchmarks-n.n.n-src.tgz artifact to all Geode releases going 
> forward, starting with 1.12.0
> 
> Arguments in favor:
> - why not?
> - it’s already public
> - we should default to including all things
> - it might be of interest to the user community
> - it might encourage contributions back to further improve it
> - it is required by CI, which is already included
> - Apache mandates that source releases must include test code too
> 
> Arguments against:
> - doing nothing is less work
> - it will burden PMC members with additional work to validate and vote on RCs
> - nobody outside the dev community has asked for it to be included
> - maybe it’s not ready
> - maybe it’s not documented well enough
> - it’s not needed to use Geode
> - Apache's legal separation between dev stuff and public release stuff
> - legal or license review may be not have been conducted yet
> 
> 
>>> On Jan 16, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Dan Smith  wrote:
>>> 
>>> If geode-benchmarks is included, that implies that an RC cannot be
>> approved until reviewers can successfully run the benchmark suite from the
>> geode-benchmarks source distribution.  Is that what we want?
>> 
>> I think it would be sufficient to run the tests of the benchmarks, eg
>> ./gradlew test
>> 
>>> Deploying CI pipelines and running Benchmarks seems like a prime example
>> of things we’d be happy to help others in the community with on the dev
>> list — but not something we would expect questions about on the user list.
>> 
>> I think it would be valuable to share our benchmarks with the geode user
>> community. The benchmark framework itself (the harness module) is a fairly
>> generic benchmarking framework than can be used to benchmark anything that
>> can be spun up using java. The geode-benchmark module has geode benchmarks
>> that could be used for testing specific hardware, for example.
>> 
>> -Dan
>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:37 PM Owen Nichols  wrote:
>>> 
>>> When voting on RC candidates, PMC members "are required to download the
>>> signed source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting
>>> executable on their own platform”.
>>> 
>>> If geode-benchmarks is included, that implies that an RC cannot be
>>> approved until reviewers can successfully run the benchmark suite from the
>>> geode-benchmarks source distribution.  Is that what we want?
>>> 
>>> Similarly, if CI is included, that seems to imply that an RC cannot be
>>> approved until reviewers can stand up their own pipeline from the geode/ci
>>> source distribution.  Is that what we want?
>>> 
>>> So far there doesn’t seem to be consensus on what to include in a Geode
>>> source release, but let’s keep in mind that anything we add to the release
>>> becomes an Act Of The Foundation and is held to a higher standard.  Apache
>>> makes a clear distinction between between development activity and official
>>> releases to the public.  Development activity is anything that should stay
>>> within the dev list.  Deploying CI pipelines and running Benchmarks seems
>>> like a prime example of things we’d be happy to help others in the
>>> community with on the dev list — but not something we would expect
>>> questions about on the user list.
>>> 
 On Jan 16, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Dan Smith  wrote:
 
 We are supposed to be including all of the source necessary to test Geode
 in the source release [1] - I think that would include benchmarks as
>>> well.
 
 I don't really see any compelling reason *not* to include the benchmarks,
 let's go ahead and get them into our source release!
 
 [1]
 
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what-must-every-release-contain
 
 On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:26 PM Owen Nichols 
>>> wrote:
 
> +1 for no changes
> 
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:57 PM Jacob Barrett 
>>> wrote:
> 
>> We can live in areas of gray that don’t require any changes. Nobody is
>> asking for benchmarks so let’s not do work to add them. Nobody is
>> complaining they CI is included so let’s not do work to remove them. Is
> it
>> ideal, meh...
>> 
>>> On Jan 15, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Mark Hanson  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Just my two cents.
>>> 
>>> I think that we should probably strip CI into a separate repo. The key
>> indicator is that if so

Re: [DISCUSS] include geode-benchmarks in 1.12 release

[Robert Houghton]

Let's not vote until there is a call to vote, folks...



On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 18:31 Jacob Barrett  wrote:

> I would characterize my vote as 0. I really don’t care either way. Just
> sharing I think they have no value in a release.
>
> > On Jan 16, 2020, at 6:08 PM, Owen Nichols  wrote:
> >
> > Geode PMC has 52 members.  If this were a vote, it looks like the
> results would have been:
> > +1: 2 (Anthony, Dan)
> > -1: 1 (Jake)
> >
> > If the next release manager were to go ahead and put geode-benchmarks in
> the Geode 1.12.0 source release, at least 3 PMC members would need to be
> willing to vote +1.  So it sounds like we need a few more of the other 49
> PMC members to weigh in on this discussion.
> >
> > To summarize so far:
> >
> > Proposal:
> > - add a geode-benchmarks-n.n.n-src.tgz artifact to all Geode releases
> going forward, starting with 1.12.0
> >
> > Arguments in favor:
> > - why not?
> > - it’s already public
> > - we should default to including all things
> > - it might be of interest to the user community
> > - it might encourage contributions back to further improve it
> > - it is required by CI, which is already included
> > - Apache mandates that source releases must include test code too
> >
> > Arguments against:
> > - doing nothing is less work
> > - it will burden PMC members with additional work to validate and vote
> on RCs
> > - nobody outside the dev community has asked for it to be included
> > - maybe it’s not ready
> > - maybe it’s not documented well enough
> > - it’s not needed to use Geode
> > - Apache's legal separation between dev stuff and public release stuff
> > - legal or license review may be not have been conducted yet
> >
> >
> >>> On Jan 16, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Dan Smith  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If geode-benchmarks is included, that implies that an RC cannot be
> >> approved until reviewers can successfully run the benchmark suite from
> the
> >> geode-benchmarks source distribution.  Is that what we want?
> >>
> >> I think it would be sufficient to run the tests of the benchmarks, eg
> >> ./gradlew test
> >>
> >>> Deploying CI pipelines and running Benchmarks seems like a prime
> example
> >> of things we’d be happy to help others in the community with on the dev
> >> list — but not something we would expect questions about on the user
> list.
> >>
> >> I think it would be valuable to share our benchmarks with the geode user
> >> community. The benchmark framework itself (the harness module) is a
> fairly
> >> generic benchmarking framework than can be used to benchmark anything
> that
> >> can be spun up using java. The geode-benchmark module has geode
> benchmarks
> >> that could be used for testing specific hardware, for example.
> >>
> >> -Dan
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:37 PM Owen Nichols 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> When voting on RC candidates, PMC members "are required to download the
> >>> signed source code package, compile it as provided, and test the
> resulting
> >>> executable on their own platform”.
> >>>
> >>> If geode-benchmarks is included, that implies that an RC cannot be
> >>> approved until reviewers can successfully run the benchmark suite from
> the
> >>> geode-benchmarks source distribution.  Is that what we want?
> >>>
> >>> Similarly, if CI is included, that seems to imply that an RC cannot be
> >>> approved until reviewers can stand up their own pipeline from the
> geode/ci
> >>> source distribution.  Is that what we want?
> >>>
> >>> So far there doesn’t seem to be consensus on what to include in a Geode
> >>> source release, but let’s keep in mind that anything we add to the
> release
> >>> becomes an Act Of The Foundation and is held to a higher standard.
> Apache
> >>> makes a clear distinction between between development activity and
> official
> >>> releases to the public.  Development activity is anything that should
> stay
> >>> within the dev list.  Deploying CI pipelines and running Benchmarks
> seems
> >>> like a prime example of things we’d be happy to help others in the
> >>> community with on the dev list — but not something we would expect
> >>> questions about on the user list.
> >>>
>  On Jan 16, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Dan Smith  wrote:
> 
>  We are supposed to be including all of the source necessary to test
> Geode
>  in the source release [1] - I think that would include benchmarks as
> >>> well.
> 
>  I don't really see any compelling reason *not* to include the
> benchmarks,
>  let's go ahead and get them into our source release!
> 
>  [1]
> 
> >>>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what-must-every-release-contain
> 
>  On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:26 PM Owen Nichols 
> >>> wrote:
> 
> > +1 for no changes
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:57 PM Jacob Barrett 
> >>> wrote:
> >
> >> We can live in areas of gray that don’t require any changes. Nobody
> is
> >> asking for benchmarks so let’s not do work to add them. Nobody is
> >>