On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Bela Ban b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 1/31/12 10:55 PM, Dan Berindei wrote:
Hi Bela
I guess it's pretty clear now... In Sanne's thread dump the main
thread is blocked in a cache.put() call after the cluster has
supposedly already formed:
Bela, you're right, this is essentially what we talked about in Lisbon:
https://community.jboss.org/wiki/AsymmetricCachesAndManualRehashingDesign
For joins I actually started working on a policy of coalescing joins
that happen one after the other in a short time interval. The current
On 1 February 2012 11:23, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
Bela, you're right, this is essentially what we talked about in Lisbon:
https://community.jboss.org/wiki/AsymmetricCachesAndManualRehashingDesign
For joins I actually started working on a policy of coalescing joins
that
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Sanne Grinovero sa...@infinispan.org wrote:
On 1 February 2012 11:23, Dan Berindei dan.berin...@gmail.com wrote:
Bela, you're right, this is essentially what we talked about in Lisbon:
https://community.jboss.org/wiki/AsymmetricCachesAndManualRehashingDesign
Damn good idea, cats as cheap labor force :-)
On 02/01/2012 10:30 AM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
LOL! This is what I got when accessing those pastebins…
On Jan 31, 2012, at 6:46 PM, Vladimir Blagojevic wrote:
Response from Brent Douglas:
Hi Vladimir,
I'm not sure this is the same thing
On 1 February 2012 15:18, Bela Ban b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 2/1/12 10:25 AM, Dan Berindei wrote:
That's not the way it works; at startup of F, it sends its IP address
with the discovery request. Everybody returns its IP address with the
discovery response, so even though we have F only
Your benchmark is giving me the creeps !
First, which version of JGroups / Infinispan does this use ? Second, is
there a way to start this in an IDE rather than through maven ? Third, I
don't think bench-jgroups.xml is picked up at all ! How do I make a
change to bench-jgroups.xml and have
On 1 February 2012 16:40, Bela Ban b...@redhat.com wrote:
Your benchmark is giving me the creeps !
Manik was the original author, I've only been adapting it slightly to
identify performance issues. I wouldn't have used Maven either, but
it's serving me well especially since it turns out I have
Hi,
I've noticed that in the last version (5.1.x) the write skew check is
performed on all keys written. However, from your documentation [1] I
understood that the write skew was meant to be performed only on the
written keys that were previously read.
Is this change intentional?
Cheers,
Hi Bela
I think I found why you weren't seeing the warnings. The
bench-log4j.xml in github master is configured to log only to the log
file (benchmark.log). If you add an appender-ref ref=CONSOLE/
you'll see the warnings on the console as well.
I am now able to reproduce it pretty reliably, even
I can also reproduce it by now, in JGroups: I simply create 12 members
in a loop...
Don't need the bombastic Transactional test
Looking into it.
On 2/2/12 7:46 AM, Dan Berindei wrote:
Hi Bela
I think I found why you weren't seeing the warnings. The
bench-log4j.xml in github master is
11 matches
Mail list logo
