Nikolay, Thanks for kicking off this discussion. Surprisingly, planned to start a similar one today and incidentally came across this thread.
Agree that the failure handler should be off by default or the default settings have to be revisited. That's true that people are complaining of nodes shutdowns even on moderate workloads. For instance, that's the most recent feedback related to slow checkpointing: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55299337/stripped-pool-starvation-in-wal-writing-causes-node-cluster-node-failure At a minimum, let's consider the following: - A failure handler needs to provide hints on how to come around the shutdown in the future. Take the checkpointing SO thread above. It's unclear from the logs how to prevent the same situation next time (suggest parameters for tuning, flash drives, etc). - Is there any protection for a full cluster restart? We need to distinguish a slow cluster from the stuck one. A node removal should not lead to a meltdown of the whole storage. - Should we enable the failure handler for things like transactions or PME and have it off for checkpointing and something else? Let's have it enabled for cases when we are 100% certain that a node shutdown is the right thing and print out warnings with suggestions whenever we're not confident that the removal is appropriate. -- Denis On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 5:52 AM Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> wrote: > Failure handlers were introduced in order to avoid cluster hanging and > they kill nodes instead. > > If critical worker was terminated by GridDhtInvalidPartitionException > then your node is unable to work anymore. > > Unexpected cluster shutdown with reasons in logs that failure handlers > provide is better than hanging. So answer is NO. We mustn't disable > failure handlers. > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 2:47 PM Roman Shtykh <rsht...@yahoo.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > > If it sticks to the behavior we had before introducing failure handler, > I think it's better to have disabled instead of killing the whole cluster, > as in my case, and create a parent issue for those ten bugs.Pavel, thanks > for the suggestion! > > > > > > > > On Monday, March 25, 2019, 7:07:20 p.m. GMT+9, Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Guys. > > > > We should fix the SYSTEM_WORKER_TERMINATION once and for all. > > Seems, we have ten or more "cluster shutdown" bugs with this subsystem > > since it was introduced. > > > > Should we disable it by default in 2.7.5? > > > > > > пн, 25 мар. 2019 г. в 13:04, Pavel Kovalenko <jokse...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Hi Roman, > > > > > > I think this InvalidPartition case can be simply handled > > > in GridCacheTtlManager.expire method. > > > For workaround a custom FailureHandler can be configured that will not > stop > > > a node in case of such exception is thrown. > > > > > > пн, 25 мар. 2019 г. в 08:38, Roman Shtykh <rsht...@yahoo.com.invalid>: > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > Restarting a node when injecting data and having it expired, results > at > > > > GridDhtInvalidPartitionException which terminates nodes with > > > > SYSTEM_WORKER_TERMINATION one by one taking the whole cluster down. > This > > > is > > > > really bad and I didn't find the way to save the cluster from > > > disappearing. > > > > I created a JIRA issue > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11620 > > > > with a test case. Any clues how to fix this inconsistency when > > > rebalancing? > > > > > > > > -- Roman > > > > > > > >
