Manik, I'm assigning ISPN-1801 to myself - I need to add my key
distribution test and the results anyway.
Cheers
Dan
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Manik Surtani ma...@jboss.org wrote:
On 29 Jan 2012, at 14:57, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
To reiterate what I said in another thread, the memory
To reiterate what I said in another thread, the memory effects of virtual nodes
on on Hot Rod clients is none since version 1.1 of the protocol (included in
5.1).
I enhanced the protocol so that clients would generate virtual node hashes and
so avoid sending them over the wire.
Cheers,
On
Good stuff! Thanks for this. Yes, I'm ok with numVirtualNodes=48 as a
default. Galder, your thoughts from a Hot Rod perspective?
On 27 Jan 2012, at 08:41, Dan Berindei wrote:
Hi guys
I've been working on a test to search for an optimal default value here:
I assume the number of vnodes cannot be changed at runtime, dynamically
adapting to a changing environment ?
I understand everybody has to have the exact same number of vnodes for
reads and writes to hit the correct node, right ?
On 1/27/12 9:41 AM, Dan Berindei wrote:
Hi guys
I've been
On 27 Jan 2012, at 10:52, Bela Ban wrote:
I assume the number of vnodes cannot be changed at runtime, dynamically
adapting to a changing environment ?
I understand everybody has to have the exact same number of vnodes for
reads and writes to hit the correct node, right ?
Yes.
--
Manik
I've created a JIRA to track this: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1801
I understand everybody has to have the exact same number of vnodes for
reads and writes to hit the correct node, right ?
Yes.
That's true, but it is not a good thing: numVirtNodes should be proportional
with the
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Mircea Markus mircea.mar...@jboss.com wrote:
I've created a JIRA to track this: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-1801
I understand everybody has to have the exact same number of vnodes for
reads and writes to hit the correct node, right ?
Yes.
That's
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Mircea Markus mircea.mar...@jboss.com wrote:
That's true, but it is not a good thing: numVirtNodes should be proportional
with the node's capacity, i.e. more powerful machines in the cluster should
have assigned more virtual nodes.
This way we can better
+1
Which default? 100? A prime?
We should also make sure the CH function is optimized for this being on.
On Jan 26, 2012 8:12 PM, Pete Muir pm...@redhat.com wrote:
I think if we are confident it will benefit all, we should turn it on.
On 26 Jan 2012, at 18:54, Mircea Markus wrote:
Hi,
On 26 Jan 2012, at 20:16, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
+1
Which default? 100? A prime?
We should also make sure the CH function is optimized for this being on.
Yes, we should profile a session with vnodes enabled.
--
Manik Surtani
ma...@jboss.org
twitter.com/maniksurtani
Lead, Infinispan
10 matches
Mail list logo
