Hi Harold, We are having the same problem and we are interested to know how you get this exact Java version. Is there a link to this particular Java version?
Thanks, Supun.. On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:57 AM, Harold Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > This seems to be fixed by a newer version of the JRE, i.e. > > java version "1.6.0" > Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0-b105) > Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 1.6.0-b105, mixed mode) > > So I think that you can avoid the tricky workaround. Thank you for > your time and attention. > > Harold > > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 12:50 -0700, Harold Lee wrote: > >> I've put together a simple HTTP server that resets the connection > >> after sending part of the response back to the client. I'm going to > >> try to recreate the bug (leaking sockets) by making many requests > >> against that server from a Linux box. I'll let you know what I find. > >> > >> Harold > >> > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 13:32 -0700, Harold Lee wrote: > >> >> Regarding this JDK bug: > >> >> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6403933 > >> >> > >> >> I think we are experiencing this using HttpCore on Linux with Java > >> >> 1.6. We wind up leaking socket descriptors until the JVM process runs > >> >> out. We also wind up having to start a new reactor thread, which > >> >> creates a new Selector. The old reactor thread keeps running and the > >> >> thread dump shows it in sun.nio.ch.EPollArrayWrapper.epollWait as > >> >> reported by others in the bug report above. > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > Hi Harold > > > > Did you have any luck reproducing the problem? > > > > I put together a work-around for the bug that causes the epoll spin > > problem [1]. If you are interested in trying it out I will happily share > > it with you. The work-around is pretty ugly, so I want to be sure there > > is no other way of solving the issue. > > > > cheers > > > > Oleg > > > > [1] http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6403933 > > > >> > Folks > >> > > >> > Anyone experienced anything like that? The looks pretty old, but there > >> > has been no reports of similar problems with HttpCore NIO. I am using > >> > Linux / JDK 1.6 on a daily basis when hacking on HttpCore but I have > not > >> > encountered such a problem yet. > >> > > >> > > >> >> Here's the change that the Glassfish team made to work around this > JDK bug: > >> >> > >> >> > http://fisheye5.cenqua.com/browse/glassfish/appserv-http-engine/src/java/com/sun/enterprise/web/connector/grizzly/ByteBufferInputStream.java?r1=1.8&r2=1.9 > >> >> > >> >> From my reading, the Glassfish code is much simpler than the HttpCore > >> >> NIO code: they're registering interest for just 1 socket and using > >> >> Selector.select() to wait for data from that socket. For HttpCore > NIO, > >> >> it isn't yet clear to me how we can detect which selector is > "trashed" > >> >> in order to cancel it and recreate it. > >> >> > >> >> I'm working on a workaround in AbstractMultiworkerIOReactor.java. If > >> >> selector.select returns 0 (setting readyCount to 0) then we don't > know > >> >> whether this bug hit us or we just had a timeout. > >> > > >> > The problem is that it is perfectly valid for a selector to return 0 > >> > ready count. This condition alone is not sufficient to assume the > >> > selector is trashed. > >> > > >> > > >> >> To be safe, I think > >> >> we need to close every registered SelectorKey and then call > >> >> selector.selectNow() to flush them. Then we can create a new > >> >> SelectorKey for each and reregister them. The only way to make it > less > >> >> common, I think, is to use a long selectTimeout value so that the > odds > >> >> of a timeout are low. Ugly, but I hope it will work. > >> >> > >> > > >> > This will unfortunately screw up handling of new / closed channels as > >> > well timeout logic. > >> > > >> > The work-around looks butt ugly and would require tons of fairly > complex > >> > code. Is there a way to reproduce the issue with a test scenario, so > we > >> > could look for alternative approaches? > >> > > >> > Cheers > >> > > >> > Oleg > >> > > >> > > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Tech Lead, WSO2 Inc http://wso2.org supunk.blogspot.com
