Thanks to all who involved in making this happen. As done with every other
releases, another stable robust product delivery to Geode community.
-Anil.
From: Owen Nichols
Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:01 PM
To: u...@geode.apache.org , annou...@apache.org
, dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: [
+1. Thanks for the RFC. Looks good.
Since there is no big impact; does this need to wait till May 13th on this. In
this case is it good enough to wait for couple of approval. Say, 3 😊
-Anil.
From: Alexander Murmann
Date: Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:09 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [
sh>query --query="SELECT e.key, e.value from
/example-region.entrySet e where e.value.positions['SUN'] like 'someth%'"
Result : true
Limit : 100
Rows: 0
Query Trace : Query Executed in 8.784831 ms; indexesUsed(1):index1(Results:
100)
Mario,
There are few changes happened around this area as part of GEODE-9632 fix; can
you please revert that change and see if the query works both with and without
index.
Looking at the code; it seems to restrict the number index look up that needs
to be performed; certain latency/throughput
Dan, very good initiative. It ensures the minimum testing when someone votes,
removing the guess factor.
Putting together a script that will cover the minimal expectation is good idea,
keeps it easier to accomplish the task.
-Anil.
On 2/7/22, 7:00 AM, "Alexander Murmann" wrote:
This is
The other problem which exists is; the case where two threads tries to create
index with the same name with different index expression concurrently. I assume
there are ways this could happen.
One solution to address overall issue with index creation on partitioned region
is by taking a distribut
Hi Team, 1.15 release manager,
Here are the list of changes that are committed after sha#
8f7193c827ee3198ae374101221c02039c70a561 from where 1.15 release branch is cut.
If you are the owners of these changes and feel these changes needs to be in
1.15 release; please make sure these changes are
> and remaining work is on processing release-blocker bugs.
Is there estimation on when this will be done?
> will allow new work to proceed
Before taking on new work; release work/issues should be prioritized; unless
there are resources available to get the work started (apart from working on
r
Yossi,
The issue GEM-1193 is fixed few years back on older version of Geode. It should
be there in current versions.
Also, without much details (stack trace) here, it is hard to say if its
GEM-1193 or something new. Can you please create a new GEODE ticket with the
artifacts (logs, stack-trace,
+1
Thanks for bringing this and taking care of this.
-Anil.
On 1/3/22, 10:41 AM, "Dan Smith" wrote:
Looking at KnownVersion.java - we did make protocol changes in 1.12.1 and
1.13.2. So, my suggestion would be to keep 1.12.0 and 1.13.1, but dop all the
other patch versions that aren't t
her or not that index is created by remote request or locally. And in that
case, the command will be successful and the cluster config is updated.
BR,
Mario
Šalje: Anilkumar Gingade
Poslano: 7. prosinca 2021. 16:41
Prima: dev@geode.
In case if you are planning to fix; the probable fix is not to send gfsh create
command to all the nodes when its partitioned region..
On 12/7/21, 6:37 AM, "Mario Kevo" wrote:
Hi Jason,
I agree with you that the user wanted to index all the data in the region
when using a partitioned
Alberto,
I don’t think the intention is to avoid, discourage adding a new method...As
you have seen any changes to the API or adding a new API has implications on
other parts of the product, it is good to validate/verify and address the
dependency across the product and get everything working i
+1.
Is the idea just creating the Jira tickets? It is not clear from here, if it
will be owned and completed by 1.15.
-Anil.
On 9/21/21, 2:13 PM, "Jacob Barrett" wrote:
Devs,
In addition to my discussion regarding the modularization of the WAN TX
batching implementation I would lik
Great work team. Thanks Naba and others who helped in getting the release out.
Anil.
On 9/3/21, 11:58 AM, "nabarun nag" wrote:
The Apache Geode community is pleased to announce the availability of
Apache Geode 1.14.0
Apache Geode is a data management platform that provides a data
The recommendation with WAN setup is:
- Create/start WAN Senders first
- Create Regions
- Create/Start WAN receivers last
That way when wan receiver is started; the regions are created on all the
sites. Sorry, I have not looked at your scripts...
-Anil.
On 7/28/21, 3:31 AM, "Alberto Bustama
Can you be more specific about the GemFire version; Is it a
supported/enterprise GemFire version? As for as I know Geode community has
never tried upgrading a GemFire version to Geode.
On 6/3/21, 1:34 PM, "Jehu Jair RuizVillegas"
wrote:
Hi team
We upgrading from Gemfire to Geode 1.1
My thoughts; I can't make distinction between feature or bug; it’s a change to
the codebase, if it has greater impact, is sensitive and takes time to build;
then it is a candidate to bring it up and talk about it before implementation.
Sometime its hard to determine/distinguish it, we developer
Can you be more elaborate on this...
Are we saying; if I (geode dev) find a bug or feature that I need for my
application, I need to get approval to create a ticket and work on it? We
already have RFC process, won't that suffice...
-Anil.
On 5/28/21, 10:36 AM, "Mark Hanson" wrote:
Hi All
+1
Instead of big merge; can this be done at package level; just a thought.
-Anil.
On 5/27/21, 10:51 AM, "Dale Emery" wrote:
We might also use IntelliJ to enforce any guidelines that we want to
enforce. You can run inspections on the command line:
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.ou
It is been some time we have been using a standard check-list for PRs. It may
be time to look back and see if any of them were obsolete; and add new items
based on the PR review experience.
Current PR check list items:
1. Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is it referenced in th
+1 to backport.
On 3/11/21, 11:38 AM, "Jianxia Chen" wrote:
Hi,
I would like to backport the fix of GEODE-9016 to Geode 1.14, 1.13 and 1.12
branches. This would help resolve the NPE for certain cases of PutAll with
CQ.
Thanks,
Jianxia
Bruce,
>> To solve that problem we currently have to issue a new 1.13 release that
>> knows about v1.12.1 and users have to roll their servers to the new v1.13.1.
Even if we introduce the client protocol version, the users still need to
upgrade to server version, that understands the protocol rig
We are investigating GEODE-8671; while investigation is in progress we like to
treat this as a 1.14 blocker.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-8671
Thanks,
-Anil.
Is there a user request to use this in an older version?
How easy is it to backport?
From the comments, it looks like it is needed for Geode artifacts published to
Maven? Is this true?
If there is no user request, and there is other way to include Tomcat session,
my view is to not backport, but
My recommendation will be:
- Identify, Prioritize, Merge 1.14 related work
- Stabilize. Cut the branch and Stabilize again (to test any new changes added
during first stabilize period)
-Anil.
On 12/18/20, 2:26 PM, "Mark Hanson" wrote:
I support the cut on a predetermined date. But I wil
The doc you are pointing; tries to create region using Functions.
You can use the samples given there and modify as per your requirement or
create a new one.
Here is reference doc about function execution:
https://geode.apache.org/docs/guide/14/developing/function_exec/function_execution.html
Th
Gester, You mentioned 9.10; you mean 1.12 geode?
+1 for backporting.
-Anil.
On 12/3/20, 10:44 PM, "Xiaojian Zhou" wrote:
GEODE-8764 is an enhanced version of GEODE-6930.
Lucene functions should only require DATA:READ permission on the specified
region, no need to gain permission on
PROPOSAL] Change the default value of conserve-sockets to
false
+1 for having the default be conserve-sockets=false. Any time there has
been trouble and conserve-sockets=true is involved we always suggest changing
it to false.
On 12/3/20, 6:58 AM, "Anilkumar Gingade" wrote:
I was conversing with few of the dev's about requirement of different
settings/configuration for set of nodes in the cluster depending on the
business/application needs; for example set of nodes serving different kind of
application requirement (data store) than other nodes in the cluster
(comp
It will be really helpful if you share updated query.
Thanks
Ankit.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 2:42 AM Anilkumar Gingade wrote:
> Ankit,
>
> Here is how you can query your JSON object.
>
> String queryStr = "SELECT d.col1 FROM /JsonRegion v, v.da
Ankit,
Here is how you can query your JSON object.
String queryStr = "SELECT d.col1 FROM /JsonRegion v, v.data d where d.col1.k11
= 'aaa'";
As replied earlier; the data is stored as PdxInstance type in the cache. In the
PdxInstance, the data is stored as top level or nested collection of
obje
Gester, Looking at the sample query, I Believe Ankit is asking about OQL query
not Lucene...
-Anil.
On 11/23/20, 9:02 AM, "Xiaojian Zhou" wrote:
Ankit:
Geode provided lucene query on json field. Your query can be supported.
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=h
+1
On 11/12/20, 11:34 AM, "Owen Nichols" wrote:
+1 Sounds good to me, thanks @Dick for stepping up!
Let's also start posting Geode release artifacts to GitHub too (as many
other projects already do). I've backfilled the last couple releases, check it
out here:
https://nam04.safelin
+1
After the PR pipeline is completed.
-Anil.
On 10/14/20, 1:32 PM, "Xiaojian Zhou" wrote:
Hi,
There’s a race that StateFlush could hang when the target member is
shutdown. GEODE-8608 fixed. This fix is a patch to GEODE-8385.
The fix should be backported to all previous version
+1
On 10/8/20, 7:51 AM, "Jinmei Liao" wrote:
I would like to include the fix for GEODE-8574 to 1.13.1, it would greatly
help the Geode on k8s experience.
Thanks!
Jinmei
Dale, I have few questions that I have added as comments to the RFC.
On 10/6/20, 5:24 PM, "Jacob Barrett" wrote:
Do we expect this to be used by production code or just test code? If this
is going to be used by production code I am concerned with introducing another
singleton class into t
ate it a bit more.
BR,
Mario
________
Šalje: Anilkumar Gingade
Poslano: 15. rujna 2020. 16:36
Prima: dev@geode.apache.org
Predmet: Re: Colocated regions missing some buckets after restart
Mario,
I doubt this has anything to do with the cl
the issue.
BR,
Mario
Šalje: Anilkumar Gingade
Poslano: 11. rujna 2020. 20:34
Prima: dev@geode.apache.org
Predmet: Re: Colocated regions missing some buckets after restart
Are you seeing no-buckets for persistent regions or non-
Are you seeing no-buckets for persistent regions or non-persistent. The buckets
are created dynamically; when data is added to corresponding buckets...
When server is restarted, in case of in-memory regions as the data is not
there, the bucket region may not have been created (my suspicion).
Can
Amit,
You can find high level details at:
https://geode.apache.org/docs/guide/112/developing/storing_data_on_disk/chapter_overview.html
Geode keeps the Key always in memory. Geode creates different Region-Entries
(Key-Value pair) based on the region configuration and how/where data is
stored.
+1 As it address a potential hang.
-Anil.
On 9/2/20, 10:38 AM, "Xiaojian Zhou" wrote:
Hi, All:
I want to backport my fix in GEODE-8475 to 1.13. It fixed a hang caused by
a potential deadlock.
This fix is quite safe, I have verified it by running all queue related
regression.
This causes a large object to be partially (corrupt data) stored in cache
instead of throwing an exception.
+1
This will provide a consistent experience our end user from 1.10 release
version.
On 7/22/20, 2:23 PM, "Jinmei Liao" wrote:
I would like to propose to cherry pick GEODE-8331: allow GFSH to connect to
other versions of cluster (#5375) to support branches up to 1.10. This would
allow g
Mario,
Here is how the CQ register behaves:
When there is a single client and two servers.
When CQ is registered, with redundancy 0:
- On non-partitioned region, the CQ gets registered on one server, through
registerCQ().
- On partitioned region, if the region is hosted on both server, the CQ ge
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
It feels like, first, we should choose right resources/tools that is suited for
the task in hand and helps in achieving the expected result (Testing - easier
to develop, run, monitor and report); and then invest in that once. Even if it
means to add new tools/subroutines in the product.
E.g.:
B
+1 As Donal said, complete the feature with all the available APIs.
On 6/26/20, 11:50 AM, "Donal Evans" wrote:
+1
Although normally features wouldn't really count as "critical fixes" that
would warrant inclusion after the release branch has been cut, in this case,
the internal API an
Looking at the cost and value derived; My vote is with current/existing process
(not running for every PR).
On 6/25/20, 11:39 AM, "Mark Hanson" wrote:
I support adding it in, but I think the time wasted is less than you think.
I think for me the most important thing is finding an issue wh
Yes, the DLock machinery handles (has option) dlock grantor departure...
As I understand, right now we have dlock at config persistence layer, but this
does not guarantee preserving the order in which the config changes are
applied. E.g.: A create region command followed by destroy could be pers
The Region separator should not be user visible. In the past, we had tried
to remove needing this from the end-user or any other place. If we look
into its usage, it is mostly for sub-regions and we don't recommend much
use of this.
I was also wondering, its use by external or management modules ha
+1
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:10 PM Jinmei Liao wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-8091
>
> We've had users that were trying to use the
> "--load-cluster-configuration-from-dir=true" when starting up a locator
> with a security manager and came across this failure on Geode1.12 a
Since this issue is introduced from 1.7; meaning its present from 1.7 time,
can it be added in the next release, is there any strong user/customer
requirement to get this in 1.13.
-Anil.
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:55 AM Jinmei Liao wrote:
> I would like to include the fix for GEODE-8055 in the
we
> ensure compatibility across the wan protocol.
>
> Is that correct?
>
>
> Anthony
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 2020, at 10:43 AM, Anilkumar Gingade
> wrote:
> >
> >>> Rolling downgrade is a pretty important requirement for our customers
> >>
>> Rolling downgrade is a pretty important requirement for our customers
>> I'd love to hear what others think about whether this feature is worth
the overhead of making sure downgrades can always work.
I/We haven't seen users/customers requesting rolling downgrade as a
critical requirement for th
Thanks Bruce.
Will take a look at "WaitForViewInstallation".
-Anil.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 3:44 PM Anilkumar Gingade
wrote:
> Thanks Kirk.
> This is for PR clear; I ended up registering/adding a new membership
> listener on DistributionManager (DM).
>
> I was tr
lying on callbacks.
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 3:03 PM Anilkumar Gingade
> wrote:
>
> > Is there a better way to know if a member has left the distributed
> system,
> > than following:
> > I am checking using:
> > "partitionedRegion.getDistributionManager()
Is there a better way to know if a member has left the distributed system,
than following:
I am checking using:
"partitionedRegion.getDistributionManager().isCurrentMember(requester));"
This returns true, even though the AdvisorListener on
ParitionedRegion already processed memberDeparted() event.
n peer nodes)..?
>
> Can someone explain about
> *PutAllPRMessage.operateOnPartitionedRegion(ClusterDistributionManager
> dm, PartitionedRegion pr,..)*, it seems this handles putAll msg from peer..
> When is this required..?
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve M.
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:06 PM Anilkumar Gin
About api: I would not recommend using bucketId in api, as it is internal
and there are other internal/external apis that rely on bucket id
calculations; which could be compromised here.
Instead of adding new APIs, probably looking at minimizing/reducing the
time spent may be a good start.
Bucket
Did you look into:"StringPrefixPartitionResolver" which doesn't need custom
implementation.
https://geode.apache.org/docs/guide/111/developing/partitioned_regions/standard_custom_partitioning.html
You can try key like - "key | file1"
-Anil.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 4:02 PM Dan Smith wrote:
> H
Yes, you can use partition resolver to achieve this.
You can also look into "StringPrefixPartitionResolver" which doesn't need
custom implementation.
https://geode.apache.org/docs/guide/111/developing/partitioned_regions/standard_custom_partitioning.html
-Anil
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:08 AM st
+1
Based on: The risk is low. Avoids false positives in automated
vulnerability scans.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 12:33 PM Dick Cavender wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:16 AM Owen Nichols wrote:
>
> > Recently it’s been noticed that spring-core-5.2.1.RELEASE.jar is getting
> > flagged f
+1 The changes and the risk looks minimal.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 2:16 AM Alberto Bustamante Reyes
wrote:
> +1
>
> De: Donal Evans
> Enviado: jueves, 19 de marzo de 2020 2:14
> Para: dev@geode.apache.org
> Asunto: Re: [PROPOSAL]: Include GEODE-7832, GEODE-7853
Thanks Kirk. Can you add an example here...
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 11:12 AM Kirk Lund wrote:
> Tips on using AsyncInvocation:
>
> * Always use await() or get()
> * Both check and throw any remote exceptions
> * Both use GeodeAwaitility Timeout and will throw TimeoutException if it’s
> exceeded
The stress test is to identify the flaky-ness within the test; and assuming
any changes to the test may have introduced the flaky-ness.
It's about paying the cost upfront or later when the test is determined to
be flaky.
If 25+ tests have been changed in a PR, the cost of running stress test for
th
+1 to include the performance benchmark code. It provides an
opportunity for community to use it and develop on it (a must needed when
Geode is termed as performant data product).
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 6:35 PM Robert Houghton
wrote:
> Let's not vote until there is a call to vote, folks...
>
I would like to keep as is...In my opinion this should not been seen as
policing; rather a concerted effort towards keeping the code stable. And
way to isolate the problem sooner than later (after merging of multiple
PRs, which will make it harder). Yes, I agree it may be annoying to sit on
code ch
Alberto,
Can you please file a JIRA ticket for this. This could come up often as
more and more deployments move to K8s.
-Anil.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:33 AM Sai Boorlagadda
wrote:
> > if one gw receiver stops, the locator will publish to any remote locator
> that there are no receivers up.
>
Trying to get a conclusion out of it:
- The SDG/STDG to address the issue by changing the code on its part
- Create JIRA ticket for the issue raised. And prioritize/work the issue in
coming GEODE release.
-Anil.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 10:12 AM Owen Nichols wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 2019, at 10:09 P
+1
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:32 AM Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:
> This is no-brainer
>
> *+1*
>
> On 11/26/19 11:27 AM, Owen Nichols wrote:
> > I would like to propose bringing “GEODE-7465: Set eventProcessor to null
> in serial AEQ when it is stopped” into the 1.11 release (necessitating an
> RC4).
>
Looking at the code, the cache.close() and InternalCacheBuilder.create()
are synchronized on "GemFireCacheImpl.class"'; it's the
internalCachebuilder create that seems to be using reference to the old
distributed-system.
The GemFireCacheImpl.getInstance() and getExisting() both perform
"isClosing"
+1
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 11:15 AM Juan José Ramos wrote:
> +1
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 6:39 PM Jens Deppe wrote:
>
> > On behalf of Juan I'm requesting approval to add GEODE-7079 to
> > release/1.9.2
> >
> > The original justification is:
> >
> > Long story short: GEODE-7079 can be hit
Dan, Some reason, cant view the diagram...It doesn't show up...
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:52 AM Dan Smith wrote:
> If you are wondering how this relates to the geode-log4j work that Kirk
> did, the following diagram might help. Basically, he made a geode-log4j
> module that makes log4j-core op
+1
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:02 AM Eric Shu wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:59 AM Benjamin Ross wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:49 AM Xiaojian Zhou
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I want to me
Alberto,
Sorry for late responseCurrently geode (java client) does provide
ability to set function timeout; but its through internal system property
"gemfire.CLIENT_FUNCTION_TIMEOUT"Some of the tests using this property
are Tests extending "FunctionRetryTestBase".
Since this is through in
+1. This is needed for spring data-geode; whose upcoming release is based
on older geode version.
-Anil.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Nabarun Nag wrote:
> Hi Geode Community ,
>
> [GEODE-7121]
>
> I would like to include the new feature of creating AEQs with a paused
> event processor to th
Its a good option. But do we see any use-cases, where user doesn't want to
wait for a server stop (if its taking long time) and continue to proceed
with other operation (say executing commands on other servers).
Also, i could not make out how this is related to GEODE-7017; the testcase
seems to be
The use-cases I can think of are edge, mesh, IOT related, large scale
streaming services where data consistency or data loss (for sometime) is
not a concern; the edge/mesh computing are getting traction now a
dayGeode also supports early-ack option which gives better throughput
compare to distr
Just to be clear between java and native-client api:
- Read timeout in function execution Java client API - This is to change
the java client behavior
And following are the native client problems and solution applies to
native-client?
- Timeout in ResultCollector::getResult() and Execution::execu
My vote is for supporting all the region type currently supported. As mike
was pointing, we have seen usecases where different regions are used for
specific application needs.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:09 PM Darrel Schneider
wrote:
> gfsh create region currently does not support "distributed-n
;
> > > Hello Anil,
> > >
> > > +1 for the proposed solution.
> > > I'd change the method name from *pauseEventDispatchToListener* to
> > something
> > > more meaningful and understandable for our users, maybe *startPaused*?,
> > > *setManualStart* (as w
I have updated the wiki based on Dan's comment.
Changes with api:
*On "AsyncEventQueueFactory" interface - *
*AsyncEventQueueFactory pauseEventDispatchToListener(); *// This causes
AEQ to be created with paused state.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:36 PM Anilkumar Gingade
wrote:
ll pause
> on the AsyncEventQueue as soon as it is created? How would someone do that
> when creating AEQs with xml or cluster configuration? Maybe it would be
> better to not dispatch any events until we are done creating all regions?
>
> -Dan
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 2:31 PM Anil
+1 to include
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 2:41 PM Anthony Baker wrote:
> +1 from me. When you need to do an offline export, it’s usually
> important. Not being able to export *all* the data might lead to data loss.
>
> Anthony
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 2019, at 2:06 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:
> >
> > +1 t
Proposal to support controlling capability with event dispatch to
AsyncEventQueue Listener.
Wiki proposal page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/%5BDraft%5D+Controlling+event+dispatch+to+AsyncEventListener
Here is the details from the wiki page:
*Problem*
*The Geode system requi
that calling this method under these conditions had no value
> and would therefor never have been called then one could argue that
> implementing this method is adding a feature. It adds a case where one
> could legitimately call this method under new conditions.
>
> > On May 23, 2
As this changes the behavior on the existing older application; it seems to
break the backward compatibility requirements.
We use client versions to keep the contracts/behavior same for older
client; can we do the same here.
-Anil.
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:33 AM Darrel Schneider
wrote:
> Is i
Make sense to me...Looking at the probability of breaking specific to, jdk8
and jdk11 through a commit.
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:09 PM Owen Nichols wrote:
> Currently every PR commit triggers both JDK8 and JDK11 versions of each
> test job. I propose that we can eliminate the JDK8 version of
>> around 5 hours, vs 2 hours for Linux tests).
May be a good time to look at reducing/optimizing this.
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 9:57 AM Ernest Burghardt
wrote:
> Yes make them gating.
> Run them every commit, Windows is a supported platform.
> Red boxes get attention and Red boxes get fixed.
>
We should be supporting non-embedded mode; I believe most of the app-server
based use cases will be doing this. This also reduces the resource usage on
the geode cluster.
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 10:44 AM Dan Smith wrote:
> Option 2 does sound like a good way to go. It does seem like if you are
Yes. From our experiment that looked like a possibility.
-Anil.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 9:59 AM Dan Smith wrote:
> Following up on the conflation thing - Anil and I did an experiment.
> Conflation definitely *does* happen on everything in the queue, not just
> the last batch. But we didn't see
+1. Will the expiration (destroy) be applied on local queues or the
expiration will be replicated (for both serial and parallel)?
-Anil.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:59 AM Bruce Schuchardt
wrote:
> We've seen situations where the receiving side of a WAN gateway is slow
> to accept data or is not
+1 to re-cut.
-Anil.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:11 PM Dick Cavender wrote:
> +1 to re-cutting the 1.9 release branch off a more stable develop sha
> within the last couple days.
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 1:14 PM Bruce Schuchardt
> wrote:
>
> > If we recut the release branch we need to update
+1
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 5:32 PM John Blum wrote:
> Definitely a reasonable change. Perhaps, for consistency sake, the same
> should be applied to Geode's Memcached support? (in another PR).
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 4:23 PM Dan Smith wrote:
>
> > I created a PR to move our redis support
If it makes easy to find/address failure with AnalyzeSerializablesTest, +1
-Anil.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 9:34 AM Kirk Lund wrote:
> +1 I've had to reorder the list a few times myself to correct the ordering
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Galen O'Sullivan
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
Good work team.
+1 to get this as part of Geode 1.8 release.
It will be good to see community taking advantage of this. And building new
native client apps.
I assume it will have all the docs about client-server compatibility
version info. And framework for backward compatibility testing with new
g
If I remember from earlier discussion; the plan was to deliver a release
once 3 months. But from the past release history we had difficulty in
achieving that, either the features are not completely ready or the
bug-fixes have taken more time. We need verify what is right for Apache
Geode, 3, 4 or 6
We should fix this for the release.
-Anil.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 5:09 PM Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:
> Imo (and I'm coming in cold)... We are NOT officially supporting Alpine
> linux (yet), which is the basis for this ticket, maybe push this to a
> later release?
>
> I prefer us getting out the fixes
Its not gfsh specific. Its in the Gateway receiver start.
It looks like the changes with GEODE-5591 still hit the earlier issue (it
was fixing) if the port is same as the port returned by "getPortToStart()",
that was removed. I may be wrong.
-Anil.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:39 PM Sai Boorlagadda
1 - 100 of 256 matches
Mail list logo
