<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 8:35 AM Dan Berindei <<a href="mailto:dan.berindei@gmail.com">dan.berindei@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'd also like to see an option for the total time to wait, instead of<br>
having to worry about two (or more) different settings.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Only 1 config sounds good to me. I admit I am more used to total time to wait rather than retry, using long and TimeUnit.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
True, if there's a bug that causes the request to fail immediately and<br>
the client retries without pause for 1 minute, it can generate a lot<br>
of unnecessary load. So perhaps we should only retry if we "know" the<br>
error can be fixed by retrying, e.g. on connection close or on<br>
IllegalLifecycleStateExceptions.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1, retrying on specific exceptions sounds like a good idea to me<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Cheers<br>
Dan<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Sanne Grinovero <<a href="mailto:sanne@infinispan.org" target="_blank">sanne@infinispan.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> No objection, just not sure about the usefulness. I think what matters<br>
> for people is how long is it going to wait before it fails.<br>
><br>
> If it's a long time (i.e. 10 minutes) then you'd probably want it try<br>
> faster than waiting 5 minutes for the second try ... exponential<br>
> backoff sounds nicer than trying to find a reasonable balance in the<br>
> connection retries.<br>
><br>
> Another benefit of an exponential backoff strategy is that you could<br>
> allow the users to set an option to wait essentially forever (until<br>
> interrupted: nicer to allow this control to higher up stacks), which<br>
> could be useful for cloud deployments, microservices, etc..<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 1 June 2016 at 09:26, Galder Zamarreño <<a href="mailto:galder@redhat.com" target="_blank">galder@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Hi all,<br>
>><br>
>> Java Hot Rod client has 10 max retries as default. This sounds a bit too much, and as I find the need to add similar configuration to JS client, I'm wondering whether this should be reduce to 3 for all clients, including Java, C* and JS clients.<br>
>><br>
>> Any objections?<br>
>><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>> --<br>
>> Galder Zamarreño<br>
>> Infinispan, Red Hat<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> infinispan-dev mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> infinispan-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
infinispan-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org" target="_blank">infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev</a></blockquote></div></div>