I wanted to see what this incubation problem is all about, so I took a
look at the web site http://incubator.apache.org/resolution.html .
It says that the B.o.D. has determined that it's in the best interests of
the Foundation to create this incubator PMC charged with providing
guidance, to help
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Jason Dillon wrote:
Prior to escalation to the ASF, a Podling needs to show that :
* it is a worthy and healthy project;
* it truly fits within the ASF framework;and
* it gets the Apache Way.
/snip
Part of the way is to resolve conflict with in the community.
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, David Blevins wrote:
Provisioning of the actual stateful session bean keys is easy to
isolate, but as I say inventing a client id that you could use as
part of a stateful session bean's id is not easy.
Would it be enough to generate a cluster-wide unique id?
FYI, I put out 1.0b3 which contains a couple of major bug fixes, which
specifically showed up on windows.
Also, a user reported running the local benchmark and getting 25,000
messages per second (= 300Mbps). Also my new turion64 laptop gets
about 240Mbps, also on a local test.
2006, at 19:38, lichtner wrote:
Is there any interest in an apache-licensed version of jgroups?
I am thinking something along these lines:
1. Well-understood layered architecture, of x-kernel, Ensemble, and
JGroups fame.
2. Performance-focused: low thread count per protocol layer
, lichtner wrote:
Is there any interest in an apache-licensed version of jgroups?
I am thinking something along these lines:
1. Well-understood layered architecture, of x-kernel, Ensemble, and
JGroups fame.
2. Performance-focused: low thread count per protocol layer (0+),
no java
Is there any interest in an apache-licensed version of jgroups?
I am thinking something along these lines:
1. Well-understood layered architecture, of x-kernel, Ensemble, and
JGroups fame.
2. Performance-focused: low thread count per protocol layer (0+), no java
serialization.
3. Simple:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Jason Dillon wrote:
Thanks! My DBA cleared this for me and now XA is working with 1 Oracle
DS and 1 ActiveMQ CF. I still can not get the 2 Oracle datasources
working together with XA though.
Glad it worked out.
Did anyone have a chance to peek at that URL I mailed
I have a feeling that something else is wrong, as I mentioned before I
see hanging transactions when using the local adapter in local-tx
mode. And when I ctrl-c G it corrupts the txlog each time... which is
very bad IMO.
What do you mean by corrupts? Do you mean that the transaction manager
I guess HowlLog.java line 362 should not be throwing an exception.
And starting up G right after produces this:
snip
Booting Geronimo Kernel (in Java 1.4.2_09)...
Started configuration 1/23 0s geronimo/rmi-naming/1.0/car
16:15:06,779 ERROR [GBeanInstanceState] Error while starting;
It just sounds like a bug, I guess.
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Jason Dillon wrote:
I'm not saying it won't work... but its defintetly not happy with
TranQL with its throwing an exception for a metadata query instead of
returning false.
--jason
On 2/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Jason Dillon wrote:
I've got a db looking into fixing that for me...
And created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1599
I'm not sure how to fix this though :-(
It looks like line 219 is setting a null xidFactory. It looks like
xidFactory is a GBean
ORA-02089: COMMIT is not allowed in a subordinate session
Cause: COMMIT was issued in a session that is not the two-phase commit
global coordinator.
Action: Issue commit at the global coordinator only.
http://oraclesvca2.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/server.102/b14219/e1500.htm#sthref32
as to why this happens :-(
--jason
-Original Message-
From: lichtner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:06:48
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Oracle XA RAR for G1.0?
ORA-02089: COMMIT is not allowed in a subordinate session
Cause: COMMIT was issued in a session
On 2/6/06, lichtner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ORA-02089: COMMIT is not allowed in a subordinate session
Cause: COMMIT was issued in a session that is not the two-phase commit
global coordinator.
Action: Issue commit at the global coordinator only.
-3 should be javax.transaction.xa.XAException.XA_RMERR:
http://java.sun.com/j2ee/1.4/docs/api/constant-values.html#javax.transaction
Anyhow, you are not actually enlisting the oracle resource manager, so
that's a step in the right direction.
I think that Geronimo is not printing the stack
then that would be excellent. I have
only compiled it and not tested it so caveat emptor.
lichtner wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, David Jencks wrote:
It is likely to work if you build it. However I don't know that it
has been used in the last year or more, so I won't make any
promises. Matt
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, David Jencks wrote:
It is likely to work if you build it. However I don't know that it
has been used in the last year or more, so I won't make any
promises. Matt might have tried it, I don't know. We have been a
bit reluctant to publish it without more evidence that it
I don't generally like default things when the default is a completely
arbitrary choice, as is the case here. This is not like a default port
number.
If someone is having trouble configuring a database then he/she or someone
else should write a tool that tries to configure out the settings, not
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Ryan Thomas wrote:
I just took a look at the c-jdbc design and it seems that they have to
execute writes one at a time (one insert statement at a time) - because if
you start multiple write transaction at the same time then multiple sites
could execute the writes in
I would pick one type of clustering at a time, solve that problem, roll it
out, and then move on to the next one. And I would specifically address
each type of clustering requirement separately (e.g. http and entity
beans) because the best solution is different in each case.
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006,
I see that the DB section says Any takers?. You want somebody to write
about clustering of databases which have built-in support, or tools like
C-JDBC?
Is anybody working on Derby clustering?
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, James Strachan wrote:
Is anybody working on Derby clustering?
http://sequoia.continuent.org/HomePage
its meant to be mostly ASF licensed now; though given its L/GPL
heritage of C-JDBC I'd be a little cautious of the licensing
It says that is the continuation of
Still, it doesn't seem like there is much interest in using totem. For
session replication you can use primary-backup, if anything.
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Catching up :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. You license the code to the Apache Software Foundation giving
the
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Jules Gosnell wrote:
We should avoid making those decesions before hand.
What decisions does the user need to make?
Users need to make a lot of decisions already. Are the decisions you
mention worth the time it will take for users to make them?
as far as clustering
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Jan 18, 2006, at 10:20 PM, lichtner wrote:
This state is transactional, I take it?
Nope. For OpenEJB, only stateful session beans (SFSB) would use this api.
I see. I plan to never use them, if I can help it.
EJB Entity beans in OpenEJB
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Jules Gosnell wrote:
I haven't been able to convince myself to take the quorum approach
because...
shared-something approach:
- the shared something is a Single Point of Failure (SPoF) - although
you could use an HA something.
It's not really a spof. You just fail
I am actually looking for another job/contract right now (in the San Diego
area, or I can telecommute), so I thought I would mention it in case
anybody knows of any openings.
Guglielmo
So where is this document now? I am not very familiar with the web site
there seems to be more than one place.
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Hernan Cunico wrote:
Hi Jules,
many of the articles (if not all) started the same way and many of them are
still a work in progress.
It would be great if you
It looks like a map-like interface. When you say this could manage state
for OpenEJB, what kind of state do you have in mind?
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, James Strachan wrote:
I got chance to have a mini-hackathon with some geronimo committers
over the weekend to hack up a real simple client API to
This state is transactional, I take it?
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006, at 18:10, lichtner wrote:
It looks like a map-like interface. When you say this could manage
state
for OpenEJB, what kind of state do you have in mind?
For a given client in EJB / JBI
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Jules Gosnell wrote:
just when you thought that this thread would die :-)
I think Jeff Genender wanted a discussion to be sparked, and it worked.
So, I am wondering how might I use e.g. a shared disc or majority voting
in this situation ? In order to decide which
guess it's bcos I
don't have much knowledge about totem.
If there is a short answer and if it's not beyond the scope of the thread
can u try one more time to explain the thoery behind your assumption
Regards,
Rajith.
On 1/17/06, lichtner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Jules Gosnell wrote:
REMOVE_NODE is when a node leaves cleanly, FAILED_NODE when a node dies ...
I figured. I imagine that if I had to add this distinction to totem I
would add a message were the node in question announces that it is
leaving, and then stops forwarding the
On the subject of paritions, I remembered this paper I read a few years
ago which shows that paritions, whether caused by hardware failures or by
heavy traffic, are a fact of life:
Understanding Partitions and the 'No Partition' Assumption
A. Ricciard et al.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
This is a very educating thread, maybe Jules can incoporate some of the
ideas into your document on clustering.
Let's hope the thread also eventually translates into working code :)
1. The user should configure a minimum-degree-of-replication R.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Jules Gosnell wrote:
2. When an HTTP request arrives, if the cluster which received does not
have R copies then it blocks (it waits until there are.) This should in
data centers because partitions are likely to be very short-lived (aka
virtual partitions, which are due
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Jules Gosnell wrote:
I believe that if you put some spare capacity in your cluster you will get
good availability. For example, if your minimum R is 2 and the normal
operating value is 4, when a node fails you will not be frantically doing
state transfer.
OK - so
I support your idea. Making branches for new feature development is
a common practice.
Were you thinking of doing it for every single change request, or only for
big ones?
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Greg Wilkins wrote:
I would like to create a dev branch to start working on some
1.1 and 2.0
the memory to itself.
I hope somebody with a budget picks this up soon.
Guglielmo
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, James Strachan wrote:
On 14 Jan 2006, at 22:27, lichtner wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, James Strachan wrote:
The infiniband transport would be native code, so you could use JNI.
However
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, David Jencks wrote:
What would the reaction be to something
that only sort of works in an official release?
IMHO all features all features in a production release should be usable.
It's not a problem if the functionality is limited, as long as it works.
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, James Strachan wrote:
The infiniband transport would be native code, so you could use JNI.
However, it would definitely be worth it.
Agreed! I'd *love* a Java API to Infiniband! Have wanted one for ages
google every once in a while to see if one shows up :)
It
To me the only important requirements in release numbers are that they
should tell the user:
1. Whether the release is backward compatible.
2. Whether it's a stable build vs. unstable.
I would rather not to have to learn the various meanings of digits 1-N. It
seems like it would make it more
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, James Strachan wrote:
The infiniband transport would be native code, so you could use JNI.
However, it would definitely be worth it.
Agreed! I'd *love* a Java API to Infiniband! Have wanted one for ages
google every once in a while to see if one shows up :)
It
I will take a closer look at it. My first impression was that
activecluster assumes a jms or jms-like api as a transport.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the inherent over head in total order protocols, I think we
should work to limit the messages passed over the protocol, to only
the absolute
If you cluster an entity bean on two nodes naively, you lose many of the
benefits of caching. This is because neither node, at the beginning of a
transaction, knows whether the other node has changed the beans contents
since it was last loaded into cache, so the cache must be assumed
With regard to clustering, I also want to mention a remote option, which
is to use infiniband RDMA for inter-node communication.
With an infiniband link between two machines you can copy a buffer
directly from the memory of one to the memory of the other, without
switching context. This means
Interesting. Can you suggest a protocol we should use for
pessimistic distributed locking? I expect the cluster size to be
between 2-16 nodes with the sweet spot at 4 nodes. Each node will
be processing about 500-1000 tps and each tps will require on average
about 1-4 lock requests (most
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
The infiniband transport would be native code, so you could use JNI.
However, it would definitely be worth it.
Do you have any references to the where one could get a peek at the
transport API?
http://infiniband.sourceforge.net/
As Jules requested I am looking at the AC api. I report my observations
below:
ClusterEvent appears to represent membership-related events. These you
can generate from evs4j, as follows: write an adapter that implements
evs4j.Listener. In the onConfiguration(..) method you get notified of
new
Yes...awesome. Bruce had chatted with me about this too...I am very
interested.
Thanks.
Guglielmo, I would be very interested in speaking with you further on
this.
I am available to speak more about it. If you need my phone number, it's
six one nine, two five five, nine seven eight six.
Over the phone Jeff asked me to start a discussion about the totem
protocol, so here it is.
If anyone just wants to get it from the horse's mouth you can read this
paper:
The Totem Single-Ring Ordering and Membership Protocol,
Y. Amir, L. E. Moser, P. M. Melliar-Smith, D. A. Agarwal, and P.
I didn't see it - I'm not sure why.
According to the website (http://www.bway.net/~lichtner/evs4j.html):
Extended Virtual Synchrony for Java (EVS4J), an Apache-
Licensed, pure-Java implementation of the fastest known totally
ordered reliable multicast protocol.
Yes, I wrote
No. You license the code to the Apache Software Foundation giving
the foundation the rights to relicense under any license (so the
foundation can upgrade the license as they did with ASL2). We do ask
that you change the copyrights on the version of the code you give to
the ASF to something
Given the inherent over head in total order protocols, I think we
should work to limit the messages passed over the protocol, to only
the absolute minimum to make our cluster work reliably.
Specifically, I think this is only the distributed lock. For state
replication we can use a much more
Well, you guys let me know if I can help you in any way.
I think there is a time and place for this and can be leveraged in other
protocols. As a minimum it can be a pluggable protocol. Its a great
start.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the inherent over head in total order protocols, I
Its been talked about but currently not implemented.I'm catching up on the
conversation and haven't looked at the pointers yet so I have a bit of
reading
to do.
Are you thinking about using Totem to replicate Entity cache information
in a cluster?
Yes.
You can take your pick of
57 matches
Mail list logo
