https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/5832
From: Dan Smith
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 11:22 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default value of conserve-sockets to false
I will go ahead and withdraw my objection to this change.
e of false) where the conserve-sockets setting is
concerned. Let's just make sure our old and new users are aware, too.
-j
From: Dan Smith
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 11:22 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default va
I will go ahead and withdraw my objection to this change. Based on some side
conversations, at least at VMWare it sounds like we don't have customers that
are not setting this flag. So the scenario I'm worried about where a customer
upgrades their production cluster and has it crash due to this
__
From: Anthony Baker
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 2:16 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default value of
conserve-sockets to false
Udo, you’re correct that individual servers can set the pro
06932400296; message=ReplyMessage processorId=42 from
192.168.1.8(server1:63224):41001; recipients=[null]
From: Anthony Baker
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 2:16 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default value of conserve-sockets to
false
server1:63224):41001; recipients=[null]
From: Anthony Baker
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 2:16 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default value of conserve-sockets to
false
Udo, you
From: Anthony Baker
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 2:16 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default value of conserve-sockets to
false
Udo, you’re correct that individual servers can set the property
independently. I was assuming this is more like
OK, I double checked, my memory is wrong. It was true as early as 6.0.
From: Xiaojian Zhou
Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 3:29 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default value of conserve-sockets to false
+1
I think it’s good to change back the default to be
+1
I think it’s good to change back the default to be false. It was false before.
From: Barrett Oglesby
Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 3:14 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default value of conserve-sockets to false
I ran a bunch of tests using the long
: TestDistributionMessageObserver
operation=afterProcessMessage; time=1606932400296; message=ReplyMessage
processorId=42 from 192.168.1.8(server1:63224):41001; recipients=[null]
From: Anthony Baker
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 2:16 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
S
Udo, you’re correct that individual servers can set the property independently.
I was assuming this is more like the ’security-manager` property and others
that require all cluster members to be in agreement.
I’m not sure I understand the use case to allow this setting to be per-member.
That ma
showed any problems.
From: Anthony Baker
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 8:52 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default value of conserve-sockets to
false
Question: how would this work with a rolling upgrade? If the user did no
have showed any problems.
From: Anthony Baker
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 8:52 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default value of conserve-sockets to false
Question: how would this work with a rolling upgrade? If the user did no
our “shared
nothing value” here..
From: Xiaojian Zhou
Date: Saturday, November 21, 2020 at 5:34 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default value of conserve-sockets to false
1) Conserve-socket will only impact p2p connection. If set to false, that mean
the p2p
From: Anthony Baker
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 5:57:33 PM
> To: dev@geode.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default value of conserve-sockets to
false
>
> I think there are many good reasons to flip the default value for this
property. I
LCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=V65jEFWBflK8CWzFgxuFwQBD%2BV2BDlOlPa%2FtLR2N3eY%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> From: Anthony Baker
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 5:57:33 PM
> To: dev@geode.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Chan
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 5:57:33 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default value of conserve-sockets to false
I think there are many good reasons to flip the default value for this
property. I do question whether requiring a user to allocate new hardware to
s
I think there are many good reasons to flip the default value for this
property. I do question whether requiring a user to allocate new hardware to
support the changed resource requirements is appropriate for a minor version
bump. In most cases I think that would come as an unwelcome surprise du
Personally, this has caused enough grief in the past (both ways, actually!)
that I 'd say this is a major version change.
I agree with John. Either value of conserve-sockets can crash or hang your
system depending on your use case.
If this was just a matter of slowing down or speeding up perform
gt; actually!) that I 'd say this is a major version change.
>>
>> -j
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Nabarun Nag
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 6:09 PM
>> To: dev@geode.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Ch
or version change.
>>
>> -j
>>
>>
>> ____
>> From: Nabarun Nag
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 6:09 PM
>> To: dev@geode.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default value of conserve-sockets to
>
>
> Personally, this has caused enough grief in the past (both ways,
> actually!) that I 'd say this is a major version change.
>
> -j
>
>
> ____
> From: Nabarun Nag
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 6:09 PM
> To: dev@geode.apache.
grief in the past (both ways, actually!)
that I 'd say this is a major version change.
-j
From: Nabarun Nag
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 6:09 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default value of conserve-sockets to false
s,
Nabarun
From: Udo Kohlmeyer
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 6:00 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Change the default value of conserve-sockets to false
Hi there Donal,
Thank you for raising this. It is not an uncommon request to change the default
value of this field.
I’m not familiar with the inner workings, but your writeup is excellent and
makes a compelling case.
It sounds like you are saying that the original motivation for
conserve-sockets=true was to improve performance, but in fact it makes
performance worse. Do you have some numbers to quantify wha
Hi there Donal,
Thank you for raising this. It is not an uncommon request to change the default
value of this field.
This has been discussed many times in the past. I would LOVE to approve this
change, but this would mean that users that don’t set this property might
suddenly have this propert
26 matches
Mail list logo
