We would certainly rather have the time-out set correctly, but one of the things I've noticed is, sometimes there is just one query or one function that takes a really long time, and because we keep retrying it with the same timeout, it keeps timing out each retry. It would probably be much smarter to use some sort of increasing timeout on the retries until we give up.
-- Mike Stolz Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Manager Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Mark Hanson <mhan...@pivotal.io> wrote: > I actually don’t really have a strong opinion one way or the other. I get > both approaches. If we want to tailor the code to use a timeout instead of > retry attempts I guess that is fine. It seems kind of like we are > perpetuating the same API problem, that the LCD approach alleviates, but ok. > > It is more complicated to code because now you need to push everything > through poll or select. Such as the connect. Not that that is a bad thing, > because it is not. It is just more complicated. > > Thanks, > Mark > > http://developerweb.net/viewtopic.php?id=3196 <http://developerweb.net/ > viewtopic.php?id=3196> > > On Aug 31, 2017, at 3:47 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > None of the time spent performing the request is deterministic that’s > why there are timeouts. I don’t follow your rational for claiming it > complicated to code. > > > >> On Aug 31, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Mark Hanson <mhan...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> > >> The only problem with that is the time to connect to another server is > non-deterministic. So, the code one would have to write to enable this > would involve a select and a bit of not fun code, but in general could be > not very useful as an API. > >> > >> I would say the lowest common denominator approach or the server based > approach is better. > >> > >> Just two cents. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Mark > >>> On Aug 31, 2017, at 1:41 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >>> > >>> I believe what Bruce was saying is that the behavior should be covered > by > >>> timeouts not iteration attempts. If the client is able to successfully > send > >>> the command to a server but a failure occurs waiting for a reply we > would > >>> not retry. If the client is unable to send the request to a sever > because > >>> the connection closes then we would try the next server, and the next, > up > >>> to the timeout value. > >>> > >>>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:31 PM Mark Hanson <mhan...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I can also see why the user doing the retries themselves has value. > As a > >>>> lowest common denominator approach, pulling the API is sound. > >>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Mark Hanson <mhan...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I think the setRetryAttempts really harks back to the case that > Bruce was > >>>>> alluding to in which the server goes down. Which is the one valid > case > >>>> for > >>>>> this kind of API in theory. Are we say that in that case we don't > retry? > >>>>> Seems like we are making the API a little less nice for people. > >>>>> As a developer using an API, I want to do as little as possible and > get > >>>>> the most robust solution possible. This seems to go the wrong > direction > >>>> of > >>>>> that kind of intent in a way. I want the client to automatically try > >>>> every > >>>>> server. I don't ever want to configure the value. I could limit with > this > >>>>> API and force it to never retry or I could cause it to retry more > times > >>>>> than I care for it to. If we are going to get rid of this API in > >>>>> particular, I would favor having it automatically try some number of > >>>>> servers or all, but not retrying at all would not be my choice. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:00 PM Mark Hanson <mhan...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would have to go looking, but the key concept is that this is a > >>>> bigger > >>>>>>> problem. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> interval such as the time between retries.... > >>>>>>> wait as in how long to wait for a response... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> All time intervals should be expressed in terms of > std::chrono::duration > >>>>>> values. A value of std::chrono::duration::zero means don't wait. I > would > >>>>>> suggest that a negative time not be allowed and that some very > large, > >>>>>> MAXINT, value could take the place of "forever". There is a ticket > >>>> already > >>>>>> open and in progress to replace all time based values with > std::chrono. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> retry as how many times to retry after a failure > >>>>>>> attempts as in how many times to do a thing before giving up > >>>>>>> Set of objects as in the setRetryAttempts code which , will try a > >>>>>> number of > >>>>>>> servers before giving up. where n is the number, -1 equals all, > and 0 > >>>>>> means > >>>>>>> (1 server, no retries). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If there are other examples of "iteration" then we should consider > them > >>>>>> based on what they iterate. I think the consensus on > setRetryAttempts is > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> abolish it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Jake > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >
