[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-936?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13198016#comment-13198016
]
[email protected] commented on FLUME-936:
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3704/#review4750
-----------------------------------------------------------
The changes overall look fine. A couple of comments,
1) It should be okay to bump up the queue capacity during before rollback
start, to ensure sufficient space to return the events.
2) The commit() after put() and rollback() after take() are both
adding elements to the channel's queue. But they are under different locks.
That means concurrent source and sink could cause queue to reach capacity in
the middle of commit/rollback and one of them would be partially complete. I
guess its better to use same lock for both operations.
- Prasad
On 2012-02-01 09:55:19, Juhani Connolly wrote:
bq.
bq. -----------------------------------------------------------
bq. This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
bq. https://reviews.apache.org/r/3704/
bq. -----------------------------------------------------------
bq.
bq. (Updated 2012-02-01 09:55:19)
bq.
bq.
bq. Review request for Flume.
bq.
bq.
bq. Summary
bq. -------
bq.
bq. This is an initial go at fixing the threading issues with memory channel.
bq.
bq. It uses the preliminary work on FLUME-935 and I have included the code
from that.
bq.
bq. The tagging of the events became unnecessary so I dropped that. One thing
that concerns me slightly is how to deal with not having enough space in the
queue to rollback failed takes. One method would be to keep a minimum buffer of
transactionCapacity. Another would be to implement the queue of queues as
suggested in FLUME-889
bq.
bq. Anyway, just putting up this early version to see what people think
bq.
bq.
bq. This addresses bug FLUME-936.
bq. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-936
bq.
bq.
bq. Diffs
bq. -----
bq.
bq.
flume-ng-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/BasicChannelSemantics.java
PRE-CREATION
bq.
flume-ng-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/BasicTransactionSemantics.java
PRE-CREATION
bq. flume-ng-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/ChannelUtils.java
PRE-CREATION
bq. flume-ng-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/channel/MemoryChannel.java
d379b64
bq.
flume-ng-core/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/channel/TestFanoutChannel.java
ada9a72
bq.
flume-ng-core/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/channel/TestMemoryChannel.java
b44030e
bq.
flume-ng-core/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/channel/TestMemoryChannelConcurrency.java
PRE-CREATION
bq.
flume-ng-core/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/channel/TestMemoryChannelTransaction.java
d18045b
bq. flume-ng-core/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/source/TestExecSource.java
6acbbd5
bq.
bq. Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3704/diff
bq.
bq.
bq. Testing
bq. -------
bq.
bq. The original tests pass, though I had to take out the state checks because
of the changes to semantics from the flume-935 code. I also had to add a
transaction.close statement where semantics were not properly being followed
bq. I have to retrofit my new concurrency test since without the tagged events
it cannot fail without checking that the content is correct. I'll put that up
asap, just wanted to get some eyes on this before I head out.
bq.
bq.
bq. Thanks,
bq.
bq. Juhani
bq.
bq.
> MemoryChannel is not thread safe
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: FLUME-936
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-936
> Project: Flume
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Channel
> Affects Versions: NG alpha 2
> Reporter: Juhani Connolly
> Assignee: Juhani Connolly
> Fix For: v1.1.0
>
> Attachments: FLUME-936-unittest.patch
>
>
> The memory channel isn't thread safe as a couple of parallel transactions can
> commit/rollback each others entries if called in the wrong order.
> I'm attaching a unit test I made that demonstrates it using a cyclicbarrier
> to force the event order that causes the precondition to fail.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
