[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-329?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14356730#comment-14356730
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-329:
--------------------------------------
GitHub user miguno opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/463
Client (Netty): improving logging to help troubleshooting connection woes
These logging statements are not on a hot path, and `INFO` is the default
log level of Storm. These logging are filling a gap that facilitates
understanding connection woes in a Storm cluster (cf. our work on STORM-329).
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/miguno/storm
improve-closeChannelAndReconnect-logging
Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/463.patch
To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:
This closes #463
----
commit 50aac686de68f783c5767a281922f05ce05e4127
Author: Michael G. Noll <mn...@verisign.com>
Date: 2015-03-11T11:07:11Z
Add logging to closeChannelAndReconnect() to help with connnection
troubleshooting
commit ea2a61d91310835a78354052889e37761a68f5cf
Author: Michael G. Noll <mn...@verisign.com>
Date: 2015-03-11T11:14:18Z
Add logging to connect() for corner cases (e.g. client is being closed)
----
> Fix cascading Storm failure by improving reconnection strategy and buffering
> messages
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: STORM-329
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-329
> Project: Apache Storm
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.9.2-incubating, 0.9.3
> Reporter: Sean Zhong
> Assignee: Michael Noll
> Labels: Netty
> Fix For: 0.10.0, 0.9.4
>
> Attachments: storm-329.patch, worker-kill-recover3.jpg
>
>
> _Note: The original title of this ticket was: "Add Option to Config Message
> handling strategy when connection timeout"._
> This is to address a [concern brought
> up|https://github.com/apache/incubator-storm/pull/103#issuecomment-43632986]
> during the work at STORM-297:
> {quote}
> [~revans2] wrote: Your logic makes since to me on why these calls are
> blocking. My biggest concern around the blocking is in the case of a worker
> crashing. If a single worker crashes this can block the entire topology from
> executing until that worker comes back up. In some cases I can see that being
> something that you would want. In other cases I can see speed being the
> primary concern and some users would like to get partial data fast, rather
> then accurate data later.
> Could we make it configurable on a follow up JIRA where we can have a max
> limit to the buffering that is allowed, before we block, or throw data away
> (which is what zeromq does)?
> {quote}
> If some worker crash suddenly, how to handle the message which was supposed
> to be delivered to the worker?
> 1. Should we buffer all message infinitely?
> 2. Should we block the message sending until the connection is resumed?
> 3. Should we config a buffer limit, try to buffer the message first, if the
> limit is met, then block?
> 4. Should we neither block, nor buffer too much, but choose to drop the
> messages, and use the built-in storm failover mechanism?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
