+1
On 6/16/20, 3:54 PM, "Jianxia Chen" wrote:
+1
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:24 PM Bruce Schuchardt wrote:
> This PR has been merged to develop. It fixes a problem with the previous
> commit for GEODE-8144 that caused performance degradation when TLS is
> enabled between
+1
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:24 PM Bruce Schuchardt wrote:
> This PR has been merged to develop. It fixes a problem with the previous
> commit for GEODE-8144 that caused performance degradation when TLS is
> enabled between servers. I have run perf tests and verified that it fixes
> the
+1
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Schuchardt
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 3:24 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: [PROPOSAL] backport PR #5250 to support/1.13
This PR has been merged to develop. It fixes a problem with the previous
commit for GEODE-8144 that caused performance
This PR has been merged to develop. It fixes a problem with the previous
commit for GEODE-8144 that caused performance degradation when TLS is enabled
between servers. I have run perf tests and verified that it fixes the problem.
It’s a small change that makes a big difference…
Thanks for clarifying, Mark. Let's wait for all the approvals and test
results before back-porting to 1.13.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:16 PM Mark Hanson wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> So this PR is actually awaiting some reviews before it will be put on
> develop.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
> On 6/16/20,
Hi Dave,
So this PR is actually awaiting some reviews before it will be put on develop.
Thanks,
Mark
On 6/16/20, 2:07 PM, "Dave Barnes" wrote:
If I understand correctly that the refactored version has already been
checked in and tested on `develop`, then we have enough approvals to
If I understand correctly that the refactored version has already been
checked in and tested on `develop`, then we have enough approvals to add
this to 1.13.
Go ahead, Mark.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:45 AM Joris Melchior wrote:
> Yes, +1 on this change.
>
> Joris
>
Hi Mario, just curious if you’ve made any progress on this as of yet. I have a
few questions:
1) What is the implication for multi-user auth? Would this just become a no-op
for this kind of SecurityManager implementation? See [1][2].
2) I’m not sure that the CN is sufficiently general. What
Yes, +1 on this change.
Joris
From: Mark Hanson
Sent: June 15, 2020 16:30
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: Refactor to Restore Redundancy Command for 1.13?
To be clear the code for 1.13 using the Restore Redundancy Command in GFSH is
fine as it stands. We
