On 4/13/13 2:02 AM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> @All, the performance problem seemed to be caused by a problem in > JGroups, which I've logged here: > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1617 Almost no information attached to the case :-( If it wasn't you, Sanne, I'd outright reject the case ... The MessageDispatcher will *not* wait until the timeout kicks in, it'll return as soon as it has acks from all members of the target set. This works and is covered with a bunch of unit tests, so a regression would have been caught immediately. I attached a test program to JGRP-1617 which shows that this feature works correctly. Of course, if you lose an ack (e.g. due to a maxed out incoming / OOB thread pool), the unicast protocol will have to retransmit the ack until it has been received. Depending on the unicast protocol you use, this will be immediate (UNICAST, UNICAST3), or based on a stability interval (UNICAST2). > For the record, the first operation was indeed triggering some lazy > initialization of indexes, which in turn would trigger a Lucene > Directory being started, triggering 3 Cache starts which in turn would > trigger 6 state transfer processes: so indeed the first operation > would not be exactly "cheap" performance wise, still this would > complete in about 120 milliseconds. This sounds very low for the work you describe above. I don't think 6 state transfers can be completed in 120ms, unless they're async (but then that means they're not done when you return). Also, cache starts (wrt JGroups) will definitely take more than a few seconds if you're the first cluster node... > Not being sure about the options of depending to a newer JGroups > release or the complexity of a fix, I'll implement a workaround in > HSearch in the scope of HSEARCH-1296. If you add more information to JGRP-1617, I'll take a look. This would be a critical bug in JGroups *if* you can prove that the MessageDispatcher always runs into the timeout (I don't think you can though !). > As a lesson learned, I think we need to polish some of our TRACE level > messaged to include the cache name: to resolve this we had not just > many threads and components but also 4 of them where using JGroups > (interleaving messages of all sorts) and 9 different caches where > involved for each simple write operation in CD: made it interesting to > figure what was going on! Yes, that would help. In JGroups, I usually log the cluster address of the thread that's writing to the log, so I can differentiate between different clusters on the same host. > Also I'm wondering how hard it would be to > have a log parser which converts my 10GB of text log from today in a > graphical sequence diagram. Yes, something like wireshark "follow TCP" feature would be very helpful ! -- Bela Ban, JGroups lead (http://www.jgroups.org) _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
