I'm +0 to "Multi-site", but like "multi-cluster" slightly better for two reasons...
1) It comes after "Clustering", showing a ++ more clearly 2) In my opinion its more inclusive of both "multi-site" and also workload partitioning where two clusters might be in the same data center, but have different applications they serve. Thoughts? On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:49 AM, John Blum <jb...@pivotal.io> wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > Take 3: http://i.imgur.com/VUQRw4u.png > > 1. Replaced Redis logo with http://fontawesome.io/icon/plug/ > > 2. Changed WAN to Multi-Site. > > > > Thanks! > > Swapnil. > > > > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 7:22 PM, theseusyang <theseusy...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I agree with Greg, "Multi-Cluster" is accurated especially for > > > cluster-2-cluster replication in one DC site. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > View this message in context: > > > > > > http://apache-geode-incubating-developers-forum.70738.x6.nabble.com/update-website-for-WAN-CQ-and-native-client-tp6659p6763.html > > > Sent from the Apache Geode (Incubating) Developers Forum mailing list > > > archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > > > > > -- > -John > 503-504-8657 > john.blum10101 (skype) > -- Greg Chase Global Head, Big Data Communities http://www.pivotal.io/big-data Pivotal Software http://www.pivotal.io/ 650-215-0477 @GregChase Blog: http://geekmarketing.biz/
