No it doesn't. That's quite a different problem. I don't want manual intervention.
On 23 January 2015 at 08:35, Adrian Nistor <[email protected]> wrote: > Galder, Manik, the jira you mention is ISPN-3140 JMX operation to > suppress state transfer [1], implemented quite a long time ago. This > should solve the problem of many simultaneous joiners. Does this fit > your needs? > > [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3140 > > On 01/23/2015 06:10 PM, Galder Zamarreño wrote: > > Hey Manik, I think I remember some JIRA to have a state transfer > manually, upon management operation or similar, in order to avoid state > transfer mayhem when bringing a lot of nodes at the same time. I don’t know > what’s happened to that, but would it work? > > > > Cheers, > > > > On 17 Jan 2015, at 02:43, Manik Surtani <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Greetings. :-) > >> > >> I chatted with a few of you offline about this earlier; anyone has any > thoughts around a ClusterLoader implementation that, instead of > broadcasting to the entire cluster, unicasts to the owners of a given key > by inspecting the DistributionManager. Thinking of using this as a > lazy/on-demand form of state transfer in a distributed cluster, so joiners > don’t trigger big chunks of data moving around eagerly. > >> > >> • M > >> _______________________________________________ > >> infinispan-dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > > > -- > > Galder Zamarreño > > [email protected] > > twitter.com/galderz > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > infinispan-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >
_______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
