Jason T. Greene wrote:
> Also, I may be wrong but I believe the UNICAST and NAKACK locks are
> separate, so a thread carrying a unicast state transfer message from
> node A will not block on recipient B because a multicast replication
> message from A is being handled by another thread.)
>
I am not too worried about the locking, although that is a factor, but
more about a multicast configuration, where you have state transfer
traffic for N transfers hitting the multicast address. Even if
everyone discards the traffic, it still has to be processed in java
land, and it will be alot of traffic.
Why the multicast address ? State transfer should be between 2 nodes, a
provider and a requester, so it should always be unicast. If we bring
partial flush into the mix, where we block only the 2 participants in
the state transfer, then we should be OK. Not sure if we should do a
partial or a full flush though...
--
Bela Ban
Lead JGroups / Clustering Team
JBoss - a division of Red Hat