Since the deadline for feedback has been reached and there have been no
objections to the proposed changes, this RFC has been moved to "In
Development" status.
Be on the lookout for a PR containing the internal Java API later today!
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:16 AM Aaron Lindsey
wrote:
> Yes, th
Yes, thanks for clarifying.
> On Apr 2, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Donal Evans wrote:
>
> Re-sending this from the correct email address. I think the original got
> eaten.
>
>
>> From the RFC:
>>> The command will return error status if:
>> I assume this means ERROR or FAILURE (non-success) status. It
Re-sending this from the correct email address. I think the original got
eaten.
> From the RFC:
> > The command will return error status if:
> I assume this means ERROR or FAILURE (non-success) status. It seems a
> little confusing that there are both ERROR and FAILURE statuses. Maybe you
> could
> Would it be reasonable to return error in the case that
> all explicitly included region aren't found?
Yes, this sounds reasonable. Thanks for pointing out that subtlety and for
updating the RFC.
From the RFC:
> The command will return error status if:
I assume this means ERROR or FAILURE (no
> On Apr 1, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Donal Evans wrote:
>
> There's a subtlety with the second no-op case though, since you could have
> a situation where you call the command with no arguments (include all
> regions) and don't find any partitioned regions, which would be fine
I think in this case i
The RFC has been updated in response to the feedback given so far.
Description of the behaviour of the gfsh commands regarding success/failure
cases has been expanded, and the internal API has been updated to reflect
the use of a CompletableFuture instead of the originally proposed
RestoreRedundanc
>
> - If a PR is configured with redundant-copies=0 and I run a restore
> redundancy operation, will I get an error?
> - Will I get an error if I run this operation when no partitioned regions
> exist?
A PR configured with zero redundancy will return success status.
There's a subtlety with the s
> If at least one redundant copy exists for every bucket in the specified
> regions, the status of the command will be success. If at least one bucket in
> a region has zero redundant copies, if there is a member in the system with
> an older version of Geode or if the restore redundancy functio
+1
I like this idea and Kirk's suggestion to use the CompletableFuture as a
standard for asynchronous operations.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:47 PM Donal Evans wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> An RFC for adding gfsh commands to allow users to restore redundancy to
> partitioned regions and to easily ch
>
> So the "restore redundancy" command is blocking and only returns when the
> operation is finished?
That's correct. The intention is to ensure that redundancy is recovered
before other commands can be issued.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 6:33 PM Jinmei Liao
wrote:
> So the "restore redundancy" c
So the "restore redundancy" command is blocking and only returns when the
operation is finished?
On 3/30/20, 2:21 PM, "Kirk Lund" wrote:
[I added this as a comment on the wiki page]
You might want to consider making RestoreRedundancyOperation actually
extend CompletableFuture.
Looks good. I put a few comments inline (look for the yellow highlights).
-Dan
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:21 PM Kirk Lund wrote:
> [I added this as a comment on the wiki page]
>
> You might want to consider making RestoreRedundancyOperation actually
> extend CompletableFuture. The interface is a
[I added this as a comment on the wiki page]
You might want to consider making RestoreRedundancyOperation actually
extend CompletableFuture. The interface is already very similar to Future,
and if you extend CompletableFuture, then the user of the API can easily
combine it with other CompletableFu
Hey everyone,
An RFC for adding gfsh commands to allow users to restore redundancy to
partitioned regions and to easily check the redundancy status of
partitioned regions has been posted:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Redundancy+Gfsh+Commands.
Please review and comment on this
14 matches
Mail list logo
