[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10490?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13898298#comment-13898298
 ] 

Devaraj Das commented on HBASE-10490:
-------------------------------------

I can't say for sure if in HBase anyone configures infinite timeout (rpcTimeout 
= 0) on the sockets but the pingery would have protected the client if it 
wanted to wait for a while in the situations where the server is busy. So if 
the rpcTimeout is passed as zero, the socket timeout is set to the ping 
interval. That means the client won't retry when the timeout happens. It'll 
just send a ping to figure out whether the server is still alive. If so, then 
it'll continue to wait (as opposed to resending the request).

But I agree that if no one uses rpcTimeout = 0, we could remove the ping stuff.

> Simplify RpcClient code
> -----------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-10490
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10490
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Client
>    Affects Versions: 0.99.0
>            Reporter: Nicolas Liochon
>            Assignee: Nicolas Liochon
>             Fix For: 0.99.0
>
>         Attachments: 10490.v1.patch
>
>
> The code is complex. Here is a set of proposed changes, for trunk:
> 1) remove PingInputStream. if rpcTimeout > 0 it just rethrows the exception. 
> I expect that we always have a rpcTimeout. So we can remove the code.
> 2) remove the sendPing: instead, just close the connection if it's not used 
> for a while, instead of trying to ping the server.
> 3) remove maxIddle time: to avoid the confusion if someone has overwritten 
> the conf.
> 4) remove shouldCloseConnection: it was more or less synchronized with 
> closeException. Having a single variable instead of two avoids the synchro
> 5) remove lastActivity: instead of trying to have an exact timeout, just kill 
> the connection after some time. lastActivity could be set to wrong values if 
> the server was slow to answer.
> 6) hopefully, a better management of the exception; we don't use the close 
> exception of someone else as an input for another one.  Same goes for 
> interruption.
> I may have something wrong in the code. I will review it myself again. 
> Feedback welcome, especially on the ping removal: I hope I got all the use 
> cases. 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)

Reply via email to