[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-900) FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16623686#comment-16623686 ] Yun Qin commented on ZOOKEEPER-900: --- I believe we have met an issue very similar to what's described in section b) of the original bug description. In our case, sid 1/2 weren't able to rejoin a quorum consisting of sid 3/4/5. The root cause was that QuorumCnxManager$Listener wasn't able to accept connection from sid 1/2 on sid 3/5. Restarting ZooKeeper on sid 3/5 solved the issue. I would really appreciate it if we can proceed with the fix, now that we have a preliminary patch and people willing to take over. Thanks. > FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets > - > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-900 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Bug >Reporter: Vishal Kher >Assignee: Martin Kuchta >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 3.6.0, 3.5.5 > > Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-900-part2.patch, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch, > ZOOKEEPER-900.patch1, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch2 > > > From earlier email exchanges: > 1. Blocking connects and accepts: > a) The first problem is in manager.toSend(). This invokes connectOne(), which > does a blocking connect. While testing, I changed the code so that > connectOne() starts a new thread called AsyncConnct(). AsyncConnect.run() > does a socketChannel.connect(). After starting AsyncConnect, connectOne > starts a timer. connectOne continues with normal operations if the connection > is established before the timer expires, otherwise, when the timer expires it > interrupts AsyncConnect() thread and returns. In this way, I can have an > upper bound on the amount of time we need to wait for connect to succeed. Of > course, this was a quick fix for my testing. Ideally, we should use Selector > to do non-blocking connects/accepts. I am planning to do that later once we > at least have a quick fix for the problem and consensus from others for the > real fix (this problem is big blocker for us). Note that it is OK to do > blocking IO in SenderWorker and RecvWorker threads since they block IO to the > respective peer. > b) The blocking IO problem is not just restricted to connectOne(), but also > in receiveConnection(). The Listener thread calls receiveConnection() for > each incoming connection request. receiveConnection does blocking IO to get > peer's info (s.read(msgBuffer)). Worse, it invokes connectOne() back to the > peer that had sent the connection request. All of this is happening from the > Listener. In short, if a peer fails after initiating a connection, the > Listener thread won't be able to accept connections from other peers, because > it would be stuck in read() or connetOne(). Also the code has an inherent > cycle. initiateConnection() and receiveConnection() will have to be very > carefully synchronized otherwise, we could run into deadlocks. This code is > going to be difficult to maintain/modify. > Also see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-822 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-900) FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15950030#comment-15950030 ] Michael Han commented on ZOOKEEPER-900: --- I think Martin might move on to something else - it sounds OK to reassign the issue to [~atris]. [~phunt] Do you might help add [~atris] to JIRA contributor list? > FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets > - > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-900 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Bug >Reporter: Vishal Kher >Assignee: Martin Kuchta >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 3.5.4, 3.6.0 > > Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-900-part2.patch, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch, > ZOOKEEPER-900.patch1, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch2 > > > From earlier email exchanges: > 1. Blocking connects and accepts: > a) The first problem is in manager.toSend(). This invokes connectOne(), which > does a blocking connect. While testing, I changed the code so that > connectOne() starts a new thread called AsyncConnct(). AsyncConnect.run() > does a socketChannel.connect(). After starting AsyncConnect, connectOne > starts a timer. connectOne continues with normal operations if the connection > is established before the timer expires, otherwise, when the timer expires it > interrupts AsyncConnect() thread and returns. In this way, I can have an > upper bound on the amount of time we need to wait for connect to succeed. Of > course, this was a quick fix for my testing. Ideally, we should use Selector > to do non-blocking connects/accepts. I am planning to do that later once we > at least have a quick fix for the problem and consensus from others for the > real fix (this problem is big blocker for us). Note that it is OK to do > blocking IO in SenderWorker and RecvWorker threads since they block IO to the > respective peer. > b) The blocking IO problem is not just restricted to connectOne(), but also > in receiveConnection(). The Listener thread calls receiveConnection() for > each incoming connection request. receiveConnection does blocking IO to get > peer's info (s.read(msgBuffer)). Worse, it invokes connectOne() back to the > peer that had sent the connection request. All of this is happening from the > Listener. In short, if a peer fails after initiating a connection, the > Listener thread won't be able to accept connections from other peers, because > it would be stuck in read() or connetOne(). Also the code has an inherent > cycle. initiateConnection() and receiveConnection() will have to be very > carefully synchronized otherwise, we could run into deadlocks. This code is > going to be difficult to maintain/modify. > Also see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-822 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-900) FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15946569#comment-15946569 ] Atri Sharma commented on ZOOKEEPER-900: --- Ping? > FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets > - > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-900 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Bug >Reporter: Vishal Kher >Assignee: Martin Kuchta >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 3.5.4, 3.6.0 > > Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-900-part2.patch, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch, > ZOOKEEPER-900.patch1, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch2 > > > From earlier email exchanges: > 1. Blocking connects and accepts: > a) The first problem is in manager.toSend(). This invokes connectOne(), which > does a blocking connect. While testing, I changed the code so that > connectOne() starts a new thread called AsyncConnct(). AsyncConnect.run() > does a socketChannel.connect(). After starting AsyncConnect, connectOne > starts a timer. connectOne continues with normal operations if the connection > is established before the timer expires, otherwise, when the timer expires it > interrupts AsyncConnect() thread and returns. In this way, I can have an > upper bound on the amount of time we need to wait for connect to succeed. Of > course, this was a quick fix for my testing. Ideally, we should use Selector > to do non-blocking connects/accepts. I am planning to do that later once we > at least have a quick fix for the problem and consensus from others for the > real fix (this problem is big blocker for us). Note that it is OK to do > blocking IO in SenderWorker and RecvWorker threads since they block IO to the > respective peer. > b) The blocking IO problem is not just restricted to connectOne(), but also > in receiveConnection(). The Listener thread calls receiveConnection() for > each incoming connection request. receiveConnection does blocking IO to get > peer's info (s.read(msgBuffer)). Worse, it invokes connectOne() back to the > peer that had sent the connection request. All of this is happening from the > Listener. In short, if a peer fails after initiating a connection, the > Listener thread won't be able to accept connections from other peers, because > it would be stuck in read() or connetOne(). Also the code has an inherent > cycle. initiateConnection() and receiveConnection() will have to be very > carefully synchronized otherwise, we could run into deadlocks. This code is > going to be difficult to maintain/modify. > Also see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-822 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-900) FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15940894#comment-15940894 ] Atri Sharma commented on ZOOKEEPER-900: --- Could you please reassign it to me/ point me to another JIRA is this umbrella? > FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets > - > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-900 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Bug >Reporter: Vishal Kher >Assignee: Martin Kuchta >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 3.5.4, 3.6.0 > > Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-900-part2.patch, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch, > ZOOKEEPER-900.patch1, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch2 > > > From earlier email exchanges: > 1. Blocking connects and accepts: > a) The first problem is in manager.toSend(). This invokes connectOne(), which > does a blocking connect. While testing, I changed the code so that > connectOne() starts a new thread called AsyncConnct(). AsyncConnect.run() > does a socketChannel.connect(). After starting AsyncConnect, connectOne > starts a timer. connectOne continues with normal operations if the connection > is established before the timer expires, otherwise, when the timer expires it > interrupts AsyncConnect() thread and returns. In this way, I can have an > upper bound on the amount of time we need to wait for connect to succeed. Of > course, this was a quick fix for my testing. Ideally, we should use Selector > to do non-blocking connects/accepts. I am planning to do that later once we > at least have a quick fix for the problem and consensus from others for the > real fix (this problem is big blocker for us). Note that it is OK to do > blocking IO in SenderWorker and RecvWorker threads since they block IO to the > respective peer. > b) The blocking IO problem is not just restricted to connectOne(), but also > in receiveConnection(). The Listener thread calls receiveConnection() for > each incoming connection request. receiveConnection does blocking IO to get > peer's info (s.read(msgBuffer)). Worse, it invokes connectOne() back to the > peer that had sent the connection request. All of this is happening from the > Listener. In short, if a peer fails after initiating a connection, the > Listener thread won't be able to accept connections from other peers, because > it would be stuck in read() or connetOne(). Also the code has an inherent > cycle. initiateConnection() and receiveConnection() will have to be very > carefully synchronized otherwise, we could run into deadlocks. This code is > going to be difficult to maintain/modify. > Also see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-822 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-900) FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15940836#comment-15940836 ] Michael Han commented on ZOOKEEPER-900: --- You could ping the current assignee [~makuchta] but it looks to me this issue is not being worked on given no progress indicator here since last may. > FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets > - > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-900 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Bug >Reporter: Vishal Kher >Assignee: Martin Kuchta >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 3.5.4, 3.6.0 > > Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-900-part2.patch, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch, > ZOOKEEPER-900.patch1, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch2 > > > From earlier email exchanges: > 1. Blocking connects and accepts: > a) The first problem is in manager.toSend(). This invokes connectOne(), which > does a blocking connect. While testing, I changed the code so that > connectOne() starts a new thread called AsyncConnct(). AsyncConnect.run() > does a socketChannel.connect(). After starting AsyncConnect, connectOne > starts a timer. connectOne continues with normal operations if the connection > is established before the timer expires, otherwise, when the timer expires it > interrupts AsyncConnect() thread and returns. In this way, I can have an > upper bound on the amount of time we need to wait for connect to succeed. Of > course, this was a quick fix for my testing. Ideally, we should use Selector > to do non-blocking connects/accepts. I am planning to do that later once we > at least have a quick fix for the problem and consensus from others for the > real fix (this problem is big blocker for us). Note that it is OK to do > blocking IO in SenderWorker and RecvWorker threads since they block IO to the > respective peer. > b) The blocking IO problem is not just restricted to connectOne(), but also > in receiveConnection(). The Listener thread calls receiveConnection() for > each incoming connection request. receiveConnection does blocking IO to get > peer's info (s.read(msgBuffer)). Worse, it invokes connectOne() back to the > peer that had sent the connection request. All of this is happening from the > Listener. In short, if a peer fails after initiating a connection, the > Listener thread won't be able to accept connections from other peers, because > it would be stuck in read() or connetOne(). Also the code has an inherent > cycle. initiateConnection() and receiveConnection() will have to be very > carefully synchronized otherwise, we could run into deadlocks. This code is > going to be difficult to maintain/modify. > Also see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-822 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-900) FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15940766#comment-15940766 ] Atri Sharma commented on ZOOKEEPER-900: --- Hi Folks, Is this still being worked on? I was thinking of taking this up. Please let me know > FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets > - > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-900 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Bug >Reporter: Vishal Kher >Assignee: Martin Kuchta >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 3.5.4, 3.6.0 > > Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-900-part2.patch, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch, > ZOOKEEPER-900.patch1, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch2 > > > From earlier email exchanges: > 1. Blocking connects and accepts: > a) The first problem is in manager.toSend(). This invokes connectOne(), which > does a blocking connect. While testing, I changed the code so that > connectOne() starts a new thread called AsyncConnct(). AsyncConnect.run() > does a socketChannel.connect(). After starting AsyncConnect, connectOne > starts a timer. connectOne continues with normal operations if the connection > is established before the timer expires, otherwise, when the timer expires it > interrupts AsyncConnect() thread and returns. In this way, I can have an > upper bound on the amount of time we need to wait for connect to succeed. Of > course, this was a quick fix for my testing. Ideally, we should use Selector > to do non-blocking connects/accepts. I am planning to do that later once we > at least have a quick fix for the problem and consensus from others for the > real fix (this problem is big blocker for us). Note that it is OK to do > blocking IO in SenderWorker and RecvWorker threads since they block IO to the > respective peer. > b) The blocking IO problem is not just restricted to connectOne(), but also > in receiveConnection(). The Listener thread calls receiveConnection() for > each incoming connection request. receiveConnection does blocking IO to get > peer's info (s.read(msgBuffer)). Worse, it invokes connectOne() back to the > peer that had sent the connection request. All of this is happening from the > Listener. In short, if a peer fails after initiating a connection, the > Listener thread won't be able to accept connections from other peers, because > it would be stuck in read() or connetOne(). Also the code has an inherent > cycle. initiateConnection() and receiveConnection() will have to be very > carefully synchronized otherwise, we could run into deadlocks. This code is > going to be difficult to maintain/modify. > Also see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-822 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.15#6346)
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-900) FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15295019#comment-15295019 ] Hadoop QA commented on ZOOKEEPER-900: - -1 overall. Here are the results of testing the latest attachment http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12669532/ZOOKEEPER-900-part2.patch against trunk revision 1743978. +1 @author. The patch does not contain any @author tags. +1 tests included. The patch appears to include 3 new or modified tests. -1 patch. The patch command could not apply the patch. Console output: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/3167//console This message is automatically generated. > FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets > - > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-900 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900 > Project: ZooKeeper > Issue Type: Bug >Reporter: Vishal Kher >Assignee: Vishal Kher >Priority: Critical > Fix For: 3.5.2, 3.6.0 > > Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-900-part2.patch, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch, > ZOOKEEPER-900.patch1, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch2 > > > From earlier email exchanges: > 1. Blocking connects and accepts: > a) The first problem is in manager.toSend(). This invokes connectOne(), which > does a blocking connect. While testing, I changed the code so that > connectOne() starts a new thread called AsyncConnct(). AsyncConnect.run() > does a socketChannel.connect(). After starting AsyncConnect, connectOne > starts a timer. connectOne continues with normal operations if the connection > is established before the timer expires, otherwise, when the timer expires it > interrupts AsyncConnect() thread and returns. In this way, I can have an > upper bound on the amount of time we need to wait for connect to succeed. Of > course, this was a quick fix for my testing. Ideally, we should use Selector > to do non-blocking connects/accepts. I am planning to do that later once we > at least have a quick fix for the problem and consensus from others for the > real fix (this problem is big blocker for us). Note that it is OK to do > blocking IO in SenderWorker and RecvWorker threads since they block IO to the > respective peer. > b) The blocking IO problem is not just restricted to connectOne(), but also > in receiveConnection(). The Listener thread calls receiveConnection() for > each incoming connection request. receiveConnection does blocking IO to get > peer's info (s.read(msgBuffer)). Worse, it invokes connectOne() back to the > peer that had sent the connection request. All of this is happening from the > Listener. In short, if a peer fails after initiating a connection, the > Listener thread won't be able to accept connections from other peers, because > it would be stuck in read() or connetOne(). Also the code has an inherent > cycle. initiateConnection() and receiveConnection() will have to be very > carefully synchronized otherwise, we could run into deadlocks. This code is > going to be difficult to maintain/modify. > Also see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-822 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-900) FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14130830#comment-14130830 ] Reed Wanderman-Milne commented on ZOOKEEPER-900: Hi, I'm wondering if there's any progress on this JIRA. I'm running into an issue similar to that of ZOOKEEPER-1678, which can be solved by fixing this. If no one is working on it, I'd be happy to take a stab at it. [~vishalmlst]'s patch added a timeout for connections to other peers, but it still seems appears that only one connection can be processed at a time. Additionally, in connectOne(long), a lock on the QuorumPeer is held, preventing other threads from accessing it. Both this issues seem to contribute to ZOOKEEPER-1678. [~vishalmlst] suggested in an earlier comment to move the socket operations to SenderWorker and RecvWorker, which would prevent socket operations from blocking other connections. Let me know what your thoughts are. Thanks! FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets - Key: ZOOKEEPER-900 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900 Project: ZooKeeper Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Vishal Kher Assignee: Vishal Kher Priority: Critical Fix For: 3.5.1 Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-900.patch, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch1, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch2 From earlier email exchanges: 1. Blocking connects and accepts: a) The first problem is in manager.toSend(). This invokes connectOne(), which does a blocking connect. While testing, I changed the code so that connectOne() starts a new thread called AsyncConnct(). AsyncConnect.run() does a socketChannel.connect(). After starting AsyncConnect, connectOne starts a timer. connectOne continues with normal operations if the connection is established before the timer expires, otherwise, when the timer expires it interrupts AsyncConnect() thread and returns. In this way, I can have an upper bound on the amount of time we need to wait for connect to succeed. Of course, this was a quick fix for my testing. Ideally, we should use Selector to do non-blocking connects/accepts. I am planning to do that later once we at least have a quick fix for the problem and consensus from others for the real fix (this problem is big blocker for us). Note that it is OK to do blocking IO in SenderWorker and RecvWorker threads since they block IO to the respective peer. b) The blocking IO problem is not just restricted to connectOne(), but also in receiveConnection(). The Listener thread calls receiveConnection() for each incoming connection request. receiveConnection does blocking IO to get peer's info (s.read(msgBuffer)). Worse, it invokes connectOne() back to the peer that had sent the connection request. All of this is happening from the Listener. In short, if a peer fails after initiating a connection, the Listener thread won't be able to accept connections from other peers, because it would be stuck in read() or connetOne(). Also the code has an inherent cycle. initiateConnection() and receiveConnection() will have to be very carefully synchronized otherwise, we could run into deadlocks. This code is going to be difficult to maintain/modify. Also see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-822 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-900) FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13821158#comment-13821158 ] Germán Blanco commented on ZOOKEEPER-900: - I think that this should take the direction of allowing the option to use Netty also in leader election, together with making connections asynchronous. This is mentioned by [~phunt] in ZOOKEEPER-901. Should we use that one or a brand new JIRA? FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets - Key: ZOOKEEPER-900 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900 Project: ZooKeeper Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Vishal Kher Assignee: Vishal Kher Priority: Critical Fix For: 3.5.0 Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-900.patch, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch1, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch2 From earlier email exchanges: 1. Blocking connects and accepts: a) The first problem is in manager.toSend(). This invokes connectOne(), which does a blocking connect. While testing, I changed the code so that connectOne() starts a new thread called AsyncConnct(). AsyncConnect.run() does a socketChannel.connect(). After starting AsyncConnect, connectOne starts a timer. connectOne continues with normal operations if the connection is established before the timer expires, otherwise, when the timer expires it interrupts AsyncConnect() thread and returns. In this way, I can have an upper bound on the amount of time we need to wait for connect to succeed. Of course, this was a quick fix for my testing. Ideally, we should use Selector to do non-blocking connects/accepts. I am planning to do that later once we at least have a quick fix for the problem and consensus from others for the real fix (this problem is big blocker for us). Note that it is OK to do blocking IO in SenderWorker and RecvWorker threads since they block IO to the respective peer. b) The blocking IO problem is not just restricted to connectOne(), but also in receiveConnection(). The Listener thread calls receiveConnection() for each incoming connection request. receiveConnection does blocking IO to get peer's info (s.read(msgBuffer)). Worse, it invokes connectOne() back to the peer that had sent the connection request. All of this is happening from the Listener. In short, if a peer fails after initiating a connection, the Listener thread won't be able to accept connections from other peers, because it would be stuck in read() or connetOne(). Also the code has an inherent cycle. initiateConnection() and receiveConnection() will have to be very carefully synchronized otherwise, we could run into deadlocks. This code is going to be difficult to maintain/modify. Also see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-822 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.1#6144)
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-900) FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13790067#comment-13790067 ] Mahadev konar commented on ZOOKEEPER-900: - [~phunt] I htink we can close this one in favor of another jira. FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets - Key: ZOOKEEPER-900 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900 Project: ZooKeeper Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Vishal Kher Assignee: Vishal Kher Priority: Critical Fix For: 3.5.0 Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-900.patch, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch1, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch2 From earlier email exchanges: 1. Blocking connects and accepts: a) The first problem is in manager.toSend(). This invokes connectOne(), which does a blocking connect. While testing, I changed the code so that connectOne() starts a new thread called AsyncConnct(). AsyncConnect.run() does a socketChannel.connect(). After starting AsyncConnect, connectOne starts a timer. connectOne continues with normal operations if the connection is established before the timer expires, otherwise, when the timer expires it interrupts AsyncConnect() thread and returns. In this way, I can have an upper bound on the amount of time we need to wait for connect to succeed. Of course, this was a quick fix for my testing. Ideally, we should use Selector to do non-blocking connects/accepts. I am planning to do that later once we at least have a quick fix for the problem and consensus from others for the real fix (this problem is big blocker for us). Note that it is OK to do blocking IO in SenderWorker and RecvWorker threads since they block IO to the respective peer. b) The blocking IO problem is not just restricted to connectOne(), but also in receiveConnection(). The Listener thread calls receiveConnection() for each incoming connection request. receiveConnection does blocking IO to get peer's info (s.read(msgBuffer)). Worse, it invokes connectOne() back to the peer that had sent the connection request. All of this is happening from the Listener. In short, if a peer fails after initiating a connection, the Listener thread won't be able to accept connections from other peers, because it would be stuck in read() or connetOne(). Also the code has an inherent cycle. initiateConnection() and receiveConnection() will have to be very carefully synchronized otherwise, we could run into deadlocks. This code is going to be difficult to maintain/modify. Also see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-822 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.1#6144)
[jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-900) FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=13789762#comment-13789762 ] Patrick Hunt commented on ZOOKEEPER-900: [~vishalmlst] [~mahadev] what's the status on this? Should we close in preference to another jira? (as Mahadev suggested) FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets - Key: ZOOKEEPER-900 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900 Project: ZooKeeper Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Vishal Kher Assignee: Vishal Kher Priority: Critical Fix For: 3.5.0 Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-900.patch, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch1, ZOOKEEPER-900.patch2 From earlier email exchanges: 1. Blocking connects and accepts: a) The first problem is in manager.toSend(). This invokes connectOne(), which does a blocking connect. While testing, I changed the code so that connectOne() starts a new thread called AsyncConnct(). AsyncConnect.run() does a socketChannel.connect(). After starting AsyncConnect, connectOne starts a timer. connectOne continues with normal operations if the connection is established before the timer expires, otherwise, when the timer expires it interrupts AsyncConnect() thread and returns. In this way, I can have an upper bound on the amount of time we need to wait for connect to succeed. Of course, this was a quick fix for my testing. Ideally, we should use Selector to do non-blocking connects/accepts. I am planning to do that later once we at least have a quick fix for the problem and consensus from others for the real fix (this problem is big blocker for us). Note that it is OK to do blocking IO in SenderWorker and RecvWorker threads since they block IO to the respective peer. b) The blocking IO problem is not just restricted to connectOne(), but also in receiveConnection(). The Listener thread calls receiveConnection() for each incoming connection request. receiveConnection does blocking IO to get peer's info (s.read(msgBuffer)). Worse, it invokes connectOne() back to the peer that had sent the connection request. All of this is happening from the Listener. In short, if a peer fails after initiating a connection, the Listener thread won't be able to accept connections from other peers, because it would be stuck in read() or connetOne(). Also the code has an inherent cycle. initiateConnection() and receiveConnection() will have to be very carefully synchronized otherwise, we could run into deadlocks. This code is going to be difficult to maintain/modify. Also see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-822 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.1#6144)
