Great thanks ! Weird, I was able to receive messages from the list but not send :( I signed up just in case, hoping it works !
@Chandresh Thanks the URL works ! Best, Sandeep On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Edward Capriolo <[email protected]> wrote: > Sandeep, > > Thank you for commenting. Sorry the URL I meant to include is this: > https://github.com/edwardcapriolo/incubator-gossip/tree/GOSSIP-22 > > Also you should sign up the the mailing list. I believe you need to email > [email protected] . I had to manually approve your > message. > > Thank you for your interest. > Edward > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Sandeep More <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hello Edward, > > > > Sorry for jumping in late, I tried to look at the URL you gave, it says > > "There isn’t anything to compare." > > > > BTW https://github.com/arosien/failure looks great ! > > > > Best, > > Sandeep > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Edward Capriolo <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > If someone gets a chance please review. It turned out to be a little > > easier > > > then i thought: > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-gossip/compare/ > > master...edwardcapriolo > > > : > > > GOSSIP-22?expand=1 > > > > > > Leveraging the code here: > > > > > > https://github.com/arosien/failure > > > > > > I attempted to contact the author of failure (ASF V2) to see if he > wants > > to > > > contribute the code. (not in maven) We have other options like fork and > > > package etc. > > > > > > Lets hold off the merge of this until after the release. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Edward > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:42 PM, chandresh pancholi < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I will also look into it. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Edward Capriolo < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > This seems interesting and low bar to entry: > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/arosien/failure > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Edward Capriolo < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I was doing some load testing and I found the the current gating > > > factor > > > > > > for max instances running in the same JVM is limited by the JMX > > based > > > > > > notification system the failure detector uses. > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently a cluster of N requires N * (N-1) JMX notification > > > threads. I > > > > > > started attempting to remove this limit without going into > building > > > the > > > > > > accrual failure detector (22) but there were some nuanced bugs > and > > I > > > > > backed > > > > > > off because it did not seem worth the change. > > > > > > > > > > > > If anyone has an literature to contribute about building a > > consensus > > > > > based > > > > > > failure detector please discuss. Once we cut this release that is > > > > likely > > > > > > were I will spent my attention. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Edward > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Chandresh Pancholi > > > > Senior Software Engineer > > > > Flipkart.com > > > > Email-id:[email protected] > > > > Contact:08951803660 > > > > > > > > > >
