Your key isn't over 256 bytes is it? On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, watul123 wrote:
> Ok, thanks. Let me debug in that direction. I will update the thread with my > findings. > > BTW, if I increase the length of key and value in my test program with binary > protocol then I consistently get CONNECTION FAILURE with below output on > memcached side > <36 new binary client connection. > 36: going from conn_new_cmd to conn_waiting > 36: going from conn_waiting to conn_read > 36: going from conn_read to conn_parse_cmd > <36 Read binary protocol data: > <36 0x73 0x65 0x74 0x20 > <36 0x61 0x62 0x63 0x7a > <36 0x20 0x30 0x20 0x30 > <36 0x20 0x36 0x0d 0x0a > <36 0x76 0x61 0x6c 0x75 > <36 0x65 0x65 0x0d 0x0a > Invalid magic: 73 > 36: going from conn_parse_cmd to conn_closing > <36 connection closed. > > Thanks again, > Atul > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 10:30:14 PM UTC-7, Dormando wrote: > Ok. > > The binary protocol is tested pretty well so it's *probably* something > in > your program, but I won't rule out a bug on the server either. The > binary > protocol is in heavy usage in a bunch of places though. > > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, watul123 wrote: > > > I can test with large string quickly. In the test app I may be > sending fewer bytes, but in my real app I am sending way more bytes. > > > > FYI: I started with SASL auth, which was failing intermittently. > After debugging I realized something is not right with binary protocol, > then I disabled > > the SASL to take it our of picture completely, and spawned the > memcached with binary protocol and still I see the the intermittent > behavior. > > > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 9:54:00 PM UTC-7, Dormando wrote: > > Looks like the protocol is getting out of sync somehow. > > > > conn_waiting only means it's waiting to read more bytes from > the socket > > from a set. Then it looks like the client doesn't send anymore > bytes, > > times out, then closes the socket (-> conn_read -> > conn_closing). > > > > It's most likely a bug in how you're using the binary protocol, > but it's > > hard to say from here. Somehow you're writing fewer bytes to > the socket > > than you told the binary protocol to receive. > > > > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, watul123 wrote: > > > > > Yes I am 100% sure. > > > When the binary protocol is in picture then only this > happens, otherwise same test program with same argument runs perfect. I > debugged a > > lot before > > > posting to this group. I am with you on the fact the binary > protocol has nothing to do with the timeouts, but it is the one cause > the > > failure while > > > reading from socket, then I guess the connection gets close, > and at the application level I get MEMCACHED_TIMEOUT. > > > > > > This is what I see on memcached's log > > > > > > 36: going from conn_parse_cmd to conn_mwrite > > > 36: going from conn_mwrite to conn_new_cmd > > > 36: going from conn_new_cmd to conn_waiting > > > 36: going from conn_waiting to conn_read > > > 36: going from conn_read to conn_closing > > > <36 connection closed. > > > 36: going from conn_closing to conn_closed > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 5:02:04 PM UTC-7, Dormando > wrote: > > > Any way to get more information about the timeouts > you're seeing? > > > > > > There's nothing in the protocol that would cause > "timeouts", but bugs > > > somewhere could cause clients to hang waiting on more > data I guess. > > > > > > You're sure they're timeouts and not some other kind of > error? > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, Atul Waghmare wrote: > > > > > > > Hi there, > > > > > > > > I am facing one issue with memcached binary protocol. > Whenever I force the memcached to use the binary protocol, my > application get > > > occasional timeouts > > > > and occasional success. The percentage of failure(set > timeouts) is more than 80% when the memcached spawn with binary > protocol . > > The moment > > > I remove the > > > > binary option, the success rate is 100%. > > > > > > > > memcached - v1.4.36 > > > > libmemcached -v1.0.18 > > > > > > > > Any idea what may be wrong? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Atul > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > --- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed > to the Google Groups "memcached" group. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving > emails from it, send an email to memcached+...@googlegroups.com. > > > > For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > --- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups "memcached" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, send an email to memcached+...@googlegroups.com. > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > --- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "memcached" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > send an email to memcached+...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "memcached" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "memcached" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memcached+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
