: Udo Kohlmeyer [mailto:ukohlme...@pivotal.io]
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 10:05 PM
> To: dev@geode.apache.org
> Subject: Re: DISCUSS : Monitor the neighbour JVM using neihbour's
> member-timeout (GEODE-3411)
>
> Hi there Aravind,
>
> I have a singular problem with thi
er timeout for all the members.
Thanks,
Aravind Musigumpula
-Original Message-
From: Udo Kohlmeyer [mailto:ukohlme...@pivotal.io]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 10:05 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: DISCUSS : Monitor the neighbour JVM using neihbour's
member-timeout (GEODE
JVM using neihbour's
member-timeout (GEODE-3411)
Hi, Aravind.
Can you help me understand why this might be a useful feature for Geode? I see
that your needs require it, but why would users in general want to allow longer
timeouts for some members? This is a significant change with
backward
, September 01, 2017 4:39 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: DISCUSS : Monitor the neighbour JVM using neihbour's
member-timeout (GEODE-3411)
Hi, Aravind.
Can you help me understand why this might be a useful feature for Geode? I see
that your needs require it, but why would users in general
Hi, Aravind.
Can you help me understand why this might be a useful feature for Geode? I
see that your needs require it, but why would users in general want to
allow longer timeouts for some members? This is a significant change with
backward-compatibility implications, so would be good for the
Hi Team,
We have a requirement to configure different member timeout for different
members as we need some members to survive in the view for longer time than the
other the members before being kicked out of the view in case they aren't
responding.
1. Now with the current monitoring
