[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2684?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16227448#comment-16227448
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on ZOOKEEPER-2684:
-------------------------------------------
Github user afine commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/zookeeper/pull/411#discussion_r148115810
--- Diff:
src/java/main/org/apache/zookeeper/server/quorum/CommitProcessor.java ---
@@ -246,33 +246,51 @@ public void run() {
}
/*
- * Check if request is pending, if so, update it with
the
- * committed info
+ * Check if request is pending, if so, update it with
the committed info
*/
LinkedList<Request> sessionQueue = pendingRequests
.get(request.sessionId);
if (sessionQueue != null) {
// If session queue != null, then it is also not
empty.
Request topPending = sessionQueue.poll();
if (request.cxid != topPending.cxid) {
- LOG.error(
- "Got cxid 0x"
- +
Long.toHexString(request.cxid)
- + " expected 0x" +
Long.toHexString(
- topPending.cxid)
- + " for client session id "
- + Long.toHexString(request.sessionId));
- throw new IOException("Error: unexpected cxid
for"
- + "client session");
+ // TL;DR - we should not encounter this
scenario often under normal load.
+ // We pass the commit to the next processor
and put the pending back with a warning.
+
+ // Generally, we can get commit requests that
are not at the queue head after
+ // a session moved (see ZOOKEEPER-2684). Let's
denote the previous server of the session
+ // with A, and the server that the session
moved to with B (keep in mind that it is
+ // possible that the session already moved
from B to a new server C, and maybe C=A).
+ // 1. If request.cxid < topPending.cxid : this
means that the session requested this update
+ // from A, then moved to B (i.e., which is
us), and now B receives the commit
+ // for the update after the session already
performed several operations in B
+ // (and therefore its cxid is higher than that
old request).
+ // 2. If request.cxid > topPending.cxid : this
means that the session requested an updated
+ // from B with cxid that is bigger than the
one we know therefore in this case we
+ // are A, and we lost the connection to the
session. Given that we are waiting for a commit
+ // for that update, it means that we already
sent the request to the leader and it will
+ // be committed at some point (in this case
the order of cxid won't follow zxid, since zxid
+ // is an increasing order). It is not safe for
us to delete the session's queue at this
+ // point, since it is possible that the
session has newer requests in it after it moved
+ // back to us. We just leave the queue as it
is, and once the commit arrives (for the old
+ // request), the finalRequestProcessor will
see a closed cnxn handle, and just won't send a
+ // response.
+ // Also note that we don't have a local
session, therefore we treat the request
+ // like any other commit for a remote request,
i.e., we perform the update without sending
+ // a response.
+
+ LOG.warn("Got request " + request +
+ " but we are expecting request " +
topPending);
+ sessionQueue.addFirst(topPending);
+ } else {
+ // We want to send to the next processor our
version of the request,
+ // since it contains the session information
that is needed
+ // for post update processing (e.g., using
request.cnxn we send a response to the client).
+ topPending.setHdr(request.getHdr());
--- End diff --
The explanation is really great. I was also hoping you could shed some
light on this part of the code. Why do we "want to send to the next processor
our version of the request" and why can we proceed in the other case if this is
required here?
> Fix a crashing bug in the mixed workloads commit processor
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-2684
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2684
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: server
> Affects Versions: 3.6.0
> Environment: with pretty heavy load on a real cluster
> Reporter: Ryan Zhang
> Assignee: Ryan Zhang
> Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-2684.patch
>
>
> We deployed our build with ZOOKEEPER-2024 and it quickly started to crash
> with the following error
> atla-buh-05-sr1.prod.twttr.net: 2017-01-18 22:24:42,305 - ERROR
> [CommitProcessor:2]
> -org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum.CommitProcessor.run(CommitProcessor.java:268)
> – Got cxid 0x119fa expected 0x11fc5 for client session id 1009079ba470055
> atla-buh-05-sr1.prod.twttr.net: 2017-01-18 22:32:04,746 - ERROR
> [CommitProcessor:2]
> -org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum.CommitProcessor.run(CommitProcessor.java:268)
> – Got cxid 0x698 expected 0x928 for client session id 4002eeb3fd0009d
> atla-buh-05-sr1.prod.twttr.net: 2017-01-18 22:34:46,648 - ERROR
> [CommitProcessor:2]
> -org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum.CommitProcessor.run(CommitProcessor.java:268)
> – Got cxid 0x8904 expected 0x8f34 for client session id 51b8905c90251
> atla-buh-05-sr1.prod.twttr.net: 2017-01-18 22:43:46,834 - ERROR
> [CommitProcessor:2]
> -org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum.CommitProcessor.run(CommitProcessor.java:268)
> – Got cxid 0x3a8d expected 0x3ebc for client session id 2051af11af900cc
> clearly something is not right in the new commit processor per session queue
> implementation.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
