> On Jul 1, 2020, at 12:16 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:
>
> To think a little more left field, with our continued investment in K8’s,
> maybe we can look into that area?
> Run tests in parallel using K8’s?
It’s an interesting idea but even more complicated than the docker solution.
Since k8s cou
To think a little more left field, with our continued investment in K8’s, maybe
we can look into that area?
Run tests in parallel using K8’s?
But I am also supportive of fixing the tests that we can run them in parallel
without the extra container scaffolding.
—Udo
On Jul 1, 2020, 11:38 AM -070
Hey, Bill, you got the votes. Go ahead with the back-ports.
Thanks,
Dave
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:54 AM Kirk Lund wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:59 AM Dick Cavender wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bruce Schuchardt
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 9:49 A
> On Jul 1, 2020, at 11:14 AM, Kirk Lund wrote:
>
> I'm not a big fan of forking the Docker plugin and making it a new Geode
> submodule. This approach kind of flies in the face of the intentions of OSS
> in general. For example, we want folks contributing to Apache Geode rather
> than forking
+1
Šalje: Kirk Lund
Poslano: 1. srpnja 2020. 19:54
Prima: dev@geode.apache.org
Predmet: Re: Back-Port GEODE-8240 to 1.12, 1.13
+1
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:59 AM Dick Cavender wrote:
> +1
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Schuchardt
> Sent: Wednesda
I'm not a big fan of forking the Docker plugin and making it a new Geode
submodule. This approach kind of flies in the face of the intentions of OSS
in general. For example, we want folks contributing to Apache Geode rather
than forking Geode to create their own new project while never giving back
+1
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:59 AM Dick Cavender wrote:
> +1
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Schuchardt
> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 9:49 AM
> To: dev@geode.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Back-Port GEODE-8240 to 1.12, 1.13
>
> +1
>
> On 7/1/20, 9:43 AM, "Bill Burcham" wrote:
>
>
Yeah, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-8293 sounds like a
statistic decrement bug for activeCqCount. Somewhere, each Server is
decrementing it once too many times.
You could find the statistics class containing activeCqCount and try adding
some debugging log statements or even add some
Seems like a bug to me. Can you please create a jira ticket.
The active CQ counts will be more meaningful at member level; they could be
different on different servers based on the CQs registered and the redundancy
level set. And that helps to determine the load on each server.
-Anil.
On 7/1
+1
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Schuchardt
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 9:49 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Back-Port GEODE-8240 to 1.12, 1.13
+1
On 7/1/20, 9:43 AM, "Bill Burcham" wrote:
I'd like permission to back-port the fix for rolling upgrade bug GEODE-8240
OK, Gester, please merge.
Thanks,
Dave
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 8:33 AM Bruce Schuchardt wrote:
> +1
> I reviewed this PR and, as Gester said, it's low risk. If it fixes a
> problem someone is having let's backport it.
>
> On 6/30/20, 3:51 PM, "Xiaojian Zhou" wrote:
>
> Customer encountered
+1
On 7/1/20, 9:43 AM, "Bill Burcham" wrote:
I'd like permission to back-port the fix for rolling upgrade bug GEODE-8240
to support/1.12 and support/1.13
-Bill
I see this fix has been well-received on develop, and getting rolling upgrade
right definitely sounds critical to me!
+1
On 7/1/20, 9:43 AM, "Bill Burcham" wrote:
I'd like permission to back-port the fix for rolling upgrade bug GEODE-8240
to support/1.12 and support/1.13
-Bill
I'd like permission to back-port the fix for rolling upgrade bug GEODE-8240
to support/1.12 and support/1.13
-Bill
+1
I reviewed this PR and, as Gester said, it's low risk. If it fixes a problem
someone is having let's backport it.
On 6/30/20, 3:51 PM, "Xiaojian Zhou" wrote:
Customer encountered a singlehop getAll failure due to
SerializationException which is identified as socket error. The solut
Hi Kirk, thanks for the response!
I just realized that I wrongly describe the problem as I tried so many case.
Sorry!
We have system with two servers. If the redundancy is 0 then we have properly
that on the first server is activeCqCount=1 and on the second is
activeCqCount=0.
After close CQ w
16 matches
Mail list logo
