ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nikita Ivanov <nivano...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Joining an ignite cluster (via ignite.sh) delay
Date Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:33:58 GMT
Agree w/Brane. Ticket on naming is filed:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-775

--
Nikita Ivanov


On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Branko ─îibej <brane@apache.org> wrote:

>  On 19.04.2015 17:11, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 09:01AM, Branko ─îibej wrote:
>
>  On 19.04.2015 00:57, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>
>  On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Ognen Duzlevski <ognen.duzlevski@gmail.com> <ognen.duzlevski@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>  Hello,
>
> I have noticed that with 1.0.0-incubating there is somewhat of a delay with
> "joining" an ignite cluster. I have 6 EC2 instances - I start ignite.sh
> examples/configs/example-ignite.sh & and then move on the next instance.
> The same command on the next instance takes about 5-10 seconds before it
> returns and each additional instance seems to take even longer. Anyone else
> notice this?
>
>
>
>  You should not be getting such pauses. What OS are you running on?
>
>
>
>  I get this when I run ingnite.sh (1.0.0-incubating):
> [15:22:31] Topology snapshot [ver=3, nodes=3, CPUs=24, heap=3.0GB]
> [15:22:32] New version is available at ignite.incubator.apache.org: 1.0.2
>
> Where is 1.0.2 available for downloads? All I see is 1.0.0-incubating.
>
>
>  You can download it here: http://www.gridgain.com/download/editions/
>
>  HUH?? Excuse me, is Ignite looking at GridGain's site for version
> updates? How on earth can GridGain be offering versions of Ignite that
> have not been released, and worse, how can you possibly call the package
>
>  Brane, I believe we have agreed that if anyone wants to offer their own builds
> of Ignite - it is ok, until they are not confused with official Apache
> releases of Ignite? If so, then someone moving at the different pace than
> Ignite can put binaries for uploads and call it a dev snapshot or community
> edition or whatever, no? Just trying to make sure we're on the same page.
>
>
> Certainly, I have no argument with that. However:
>
>    - The build is promoted on the site as "GridGain Community Edition",
>    which is perfectly fine, but the package is called "gridgain-ignite" and
>    that's not fine;
>    - It would be OK if were called 'apache-ignite-x.y.z.-bin-blabla' and
>    promoted as "Ignite Binaries provided by GridGain" or similar, but in that
>    case, one can't actually use a different version number than whatever has
>    been published by the Ignite podling.
>
> Also note that, according to the OP, the log message (see above) implies
> that there's a new version of Ignite available ... which implies it's
> looking at the GridGain site. That's OK for for a GridGain Community
> Edition to do, but not OK for (convenience) binaries or builds source
> published on ASF mirrors. I'm guessing there's some confusion here as to
> which binaries were actually used: the goal of our branding and trademarks
> policies are to avoid exactly this kind of confusion.
>
>
> To summarize:
>
>    - GridGain Enterprise Edition (e.g.,
>    gridgain-enterprise-foo-version.zip) is fine;
>    - GridGain Community Edition (e.g.,
>    gridgain-community-foo-version.zip) is fine;
>    - Apache Ignite binaries provided by GridGain (e.g.,
>    apache-ignite-foo-version.zip) is fine, too, as long as the binaries don't
>    go announcing version updates from info published on the GridGain site (but
>    it's OK to look for info on the Ignite site); and as long as they either
>    don't contain the LGPL&Co. dependencies, or very explicitly warn users that
>    distribution rights are not covered by ALv2;
>     - What's currently published is confusing, i.e., not OK.
>
>
> I'd also recommend that whatever GridGain publishes as their open source
> edition should have licensing terms and restrictions explained clearly
> prominently; of course, if and how that's done is no longer our (the ASF
> project's) problem, as long as they adhere to the "principle of least
> surprise," q.v. above.
>
>
>  'gridgain-ignite'? There's no such thing.
>
> Really, I thought we had the brand dilution and trademark violation
> questions sorted out.
>
>  That's a bad idea, indeed! There shouldn't be such thing as Foo Ignite, where
> Foo != Apache. That's a clear contradiction to TM policy.
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> -- Brane
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message