Vladislav, I started to review the latest changes and have couple of questions:
1. latest changes are here - https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/120? Is that correct? 2. org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.datastructures.GridCacheSemaphoreImpl.Sync#nodeMap is accessed in both sync and unsync context. Are you sure this is fine. 3. As far as failing test - can you please isolate it into separate junit or point out existing one? --Yakov 2015-11-11 12:33 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladis...@gmail.com>: > Yakov, > > sorry for running a bit late. > > > Vladislav, do you have any updates for > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-638? Or any questions? > > > > --Yakov > > I have problems with some fail-over scenarios; > It seems that if the two nodes are in the middle of acquiring or releasing > the semaphore, > and one of them fails, all nodes get: > > [09:36:38,509][ERROR][ignite-#13%pub-null%][GridCacheSemaphoreImpl] > <ignite-atomics-sys-cache> Failed to compare and set: > o.a.i.i.processors.datastructures.GridCacheSemaphoreImpl$Sync$1@5528b728 > class org.apache.ignite.internal.cluster.ClusterTopologyCheckedException: > Failed to acquire lock for keys (primary node left grid, retry transaction > if possible) [keys=[UserKeyCacheObjectImpl [val=GridCacheInternalKeyImpl > [name=ac83b8cb-3052-49a6-9301-81b20b0ecf3a], hasValBytes=true]], > node=c321fcc4-5db5-4b03-9811-6a5587f2c253] > ... > Caused by: class > org.apache.ignite.internal.cluster.ClusterTopologyCheckedException: Failed > to acquire lock for keys (primary node left grid, retry transaction if > possible) [keys=[UserKeyCacheObjectImpl [val=GridCacheInternalKeyImpl > [name=ac83b8cb-3052-49a6-9301-81b20b0ecf3a], hasValBytes=true]], > node=c321fcc4-5db5-4b03-9811-6a5587f2c253] > at > > org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.distributed.dht.colocated.GridDhtColocatedLockFuture.newTopologyException(GridDhtColocatedLockFuture.java:1199) > ... 10 more > > > I'm still trying to find out how to exactly reproduce this behavior, > I'll send you more details once I try few more things. > > I am still using partitioned cache, does it make sense to use replicated > cache instead? > > > Other than that, I'm done with everything else. > > Thanks, > Vladisav > >
