Re: [jgroups-users] unexplained port usage

Questions/problems related to using JGroups <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.java.javagroups.general
Message-ID <CAPO65OjEEaoKCzRHd-9JUZtuOivtaoEt-2hNgcmAc-XOHZT87A@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Questions/problems related to using
JGroups <[email protected]> wrote:

> Comments inline, marked with [bela]
> [....]
>
> > Question 3: Moving forward, based on other unrelated discussions with
> > you, I've replaced FD with FD_ALL.
>
> [bela] Excellent, good choice!
>
> > Can I just pull FD_SOCK out of there and things should work ok?
>
> [bela]
> Yes, but you won't have immediate view changes when a member crashes;
> now a new view is installed after FD_ALL's timeout kicked which may take
> time. This will block (1) blocking RPCs, (2) STABLE and (3) flow control.
>

I think this is all fine. Will test, but we generally want users to set a
decent timeout for failure detection, like 50 seconds, so will be waiting
anyway,


>
> > So, to get it all in one place, I'm proposing this stack
> > (values removed, but it's the same as pasted in the initial mail in this
> > thread with FD -> FD_ALL). Do you see any issues?
> >
> >          stack.addProtocol(new TCP()
> >              .addProtocol(new TCPPING()
> >              .addProtocol(new MERGE3()
> >              .addProtocol(new FD_SOCK()) <---- will remove this one
> >              .addProtocol(new FD_ALL()      <---- changed to FD_ALL from
> FD
> >              .addProtocol(new VERIFY_SUSPECT()
> >              .addProtocol(new BARRIER())
> >              .addProtocol(new NAKACK2()
> >              .addProtocol(new UNICAST3())
> >              .addProtocol(new STABLE()
> >              .addProtocol(createAuthProtocol(efmNode))
> >              .addProtocol(new GMS()
> >              .addProtocol(new MFC()
> >              .addProtocol(new FRAG2())
> >              .addProtocol(new STATE_TRANSFER());
>
> [bela]
> Looks ok. Note that FD_ALL2 has never seen a lot of testing versus
> FD_ALL. It's not a complex protocol though so you should be fine.
>

I think I meant FD_ALL, not the '2' one. Edited above so that I'll now have
.../MERGE3/FD_ALL/VERIFY_SUSPECT/...

Thanks,
Bobby

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape

_______________________________________________
javagroups-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/javagroups-users
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.