Thanks a lot for the Response Robbie! Per your suggestion, added the CIT to the Pull Request (& yes, as you already said – this issue is being tracked via JIRA - PROTON-1171).
Thanks a lot for the Wonderful Collaboration! Sree From: Robbie Gemmell<mailto:robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 3:52 AM To: proton@qpid.apache.org<mailto:proton@qpid.apache.org> Cc: SeongJoon Kwak (SJ)<mailto:sjk...@microsoft.com>; hm...@microsoft.com<mailto:hm...@microsoft.com> Subject: Re: Proton-j Reactor - Receiver Hi Sree, Thanks for the analysis and PR, I'll try to take a proper look soon. It's not an area of the code I'm familiar with so I'll need to have a bit of a dig myself to see if the change seems ok. I'd note that any not-insignificant bug fix such as this should probably have a test with it (and a JIRA, though I see you have since created one of those) :) Robbie On 6 April 2016 at 01:23, Garlapati Sreeram Kumar <sreer...@live.com> wrote: > Hello Robbie, > > We are using proton-j client with SSL and many of our customers are hitting > this issue. > Here are my findings after debugging through this issue: > > - When incoming bytes arrive on the SocketChannel – proton-j client > gets signaled by nio & as a result it unwinds the transport stack – as a > result all the TransportInput implementations performs its task on the Read > Bytes and hands off to the Next Layer in the stack (transport to ssl, ssl to > frameparser etc). > > - While unwinding that stack, SimpleSSLTransportWrapper.unwrapInput > reads(16k bytes) from _inputBuffer and the result - decoded bytes are written > to _decodedInputBuffer – as an intermediate buffer. > > - It then flushes bytes from intermediate buffer to the next layer & > invokes an _underlyingInput.Process() – to signal it that it has bytes in its > input buffer. > > - If the underlyingInput (lets say FrameParser) buffer size is small > – lets say 4k – then decodedInputBuffer will be left with 12k bytes & Over > time this accrues. > > The fix here is to flush decodedInputBuffer to the Next transport in the > Network Stack & call _underlyingInput.Process() - until decodedInputBuffer is > empty. Here’s the pull request - https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/73 > > Pl. let me know if we need to do more to fix this issue comprehensively. > > Thx! > Sree > > From: Robbie Gemmell<mailto:robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:19 AM > To: proton@qpid.apache.org<mailto:proton@qpid.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Proton-j Reactor - Receiver > > On 31 March 2016 at 04:32, Garlapati Sreeram Kumar <sreer...@live.com> wrote: >> Hello All! >> >> I am using Proton-J reactor API (Version 0.12.0) for receiving AMQP Messages >> (from Microsoft Azure Event Hubs): >> https://github.com/Azure/azure-event-hubs/blob/master/java/azure-eventhubs/src/main/java/com/microsoft/azure/servicebus/amqp/ReceiveLinkHandler.java#L124 >> >> Am using the onDelivery(Event) callback to receive messages. I really >> appreciate your help with this issue/behavior: >> >> ISSUE: I noticed that the last few messages on the Queue are not being >> issued to onDelivery(Event) callback by the Reactor >> - Then, I went ahead and enabled proton Frame tracing (PN_TRACE_FRM=1) and >> discovered that the Transfer frames corresponding to those messages were not >> even delivered to Client. Then, I looked at our Service Proton Frames and >> can clearly see that they are being delivered by the Service. And other AMQP >> clients (for ex: .net client can see the Transfer frames) >> - Is this a known behavior? >> Does Reactor code path disable Nagle on underlying socket – could this be >> related? or is there any other Configuration that we should be setting to >> see all Transfer frames received on the Socket? >> >> Please advice. >> >> Thanks a lot in Advance! >> Sree >> >> Sent from Mail for Windows 10 >> > > I'm not aware of anyone else reporting anything like that. I don't see > anything in the code suggesting the reactor sets TCP_NODELAY trueon > the socket, but I wouldn't think that should matter here. > > The frame trace logging is done after the bytes are given to the > Transport and are processed into frames, so a lack of logging could > suggest various things such as they didnt actually get there, they > werent processed, something went wrong before they did/were, something > went wrong decoding them, etc. Its hard to say much more without more > info. > > Robbie
