[jira] Commented: (ZOOKEEPER-275) Bug in FastLeaderElection

2009-02-02 Thread Hudson (JIRA)

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-275?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12669568#action_12669568
 ] 

Hudson commented on ZOOKEEPER-275:
--

Integrated in ZooKeeper-trunk #217 (See 
[http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/ZooKeeper-trunk/217/])


 Bug in FastLeaderElection
 -

 Key: ZOOKEEPER-275
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-275
 Project: Zookeeper
  Issue Type: Bug
  Components: leaderElection
Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 3.0.1
Reporter: Flavio Paiva Junqueira
Assignee: Flavio Paiva Junqueira
 Fix For: 3.1.0

 Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-275.patch, ZOOKEEPER-275.patch, 
 ZOOKEEPER-275.patch, ZOOKEEPER-275.patch


 I found an execution in which leader election does not make progress. Here is 
 the problematic scenario:
 - We have an ensemble of 3 servers, and we start only 2;
 - We let them elect a leader, and then crash the one with lowest id, say S_1 
 (call the other S_2);
 - We restart the crashed server.
 Upon restarting S_1, S_2 has its logical clock more advanced, and S_1 has its 
 logical clock set to 1. Once S_1 receives a notification from S_2, it notices 
 that it is in the wrong round and it advances its logical clock to the same 
 value as S_1. Now, the problem comes exactly in this point because in the 
 current code S_1 resets its vote to its initial vote (its own id and zxid). 
 Since S_2 has already notified S_1, it won't do it again, and we are stuck. 
 The patch I'm submitting fixes this problem by setting the vote of S_1 to the 
 one received if it satisfies the total order predicate (received zxid is 
 higher or received zxid is the same and received id is higher).
 Related to this problem, I noticed that by trying to avoid unnecessary 
 notification duplicates, there could be scenarios in which a server fails 
 before electing a leader and restarts before leader election succeeds. This 
 could happen, for example, when there isn't enough servers available and one 
 available crashes and restarts. I fixed this problem in the attached patch by 
 allowing a server to send a new batch of notifications if there is at least 
 one outgoing queue of pending notifications empty. This is ok because we 
 space out consecutive batches of notifications. 

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.



[jira] Commented: (ZOOKEEPER-275) Bug in FastLeaderElection

2009-01-24 Thread Flavio Paiva Junqueira (JIRA)

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-275?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12666934#action_12666934
 ] 

Flavio Paiva Junqueira commented on ZOOKEEPER-275:
--

kills means calling the shutdown method of QuorumCnxManager.Listener. I 
referred to kill because this is how I reproduce the problem out of unit 
tests, by just killing the server (ctrl-c). Now, we do close the socket there, 
but from I found on the net, calling close and having it returning doesn't mean 
that the port is released.

This patch is good for me, but it doesn't include the unit test for the case we 
are discussing. Although I think it is trivial the correction to the problem 
pointed out, having a unit tests would prevent us from making the same mistake 
in the future. So, I'd like to submit the current patch for review and perhaps 
open another JIRA for the unit test if you think it is worth having it.   

 Bug in FastLeaderElection
 -

 Key: ZOOKEEPER-275
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-275
 Project: Zookeeper
  Issue Type: Bug
  Components: leaderElection
Affects Versions: 3.0.0, 3.0.1
Reporter: Flavio Paiva Junqueira
Assignee: Flavio Paiva Junqueira
 Fix For: 3.1.0

 Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-275.patch


 I found an execution in which leader election does not make progress. Here is 
 the problematic scenario:
 - We have an ensemble of 3 servers, and we start only 2;
 - We let them elect a leader, and then crash the one with lowest id, say S_1 
 (call the other S_2);
 - We restart the crashed server.
 Upon restarting S_1, S_2 has its logical clock more advanced, and S_1 has its 
 logical clock set to 1. Once S_1 receives a notification from S_2, it notices 
 that it is in the wrong round and it advances its logical clock to the same 
 value as S_1. Now, the problem comes exactly in this point because in the 
 current code S_1 resets its vote to its initial vote (its own id and zxid). 
 Since S_2 has already notified S_1, it won't do it again, and we are stuck. 
 The patch I'm submitting fixes this problem by setting the vote of S_1 to the 
 one received if it satisfies the total order predicate (received zxid is 
 higher or received zxid is the same and received id is higher).
 Related to this problem, I noticed that by trying to avoid unnecessary 
 notification duplicates, there could be scenarios in which a server fails 
 before electing a leader and restarts before leader election succeeds. This 
 could happen, for example, when there isn't enough servers available and one 
 available crashes and restarts. I fixed this problem in the attached patch by 
 allowing a server to send a new batch of notifications if there is at least 
 one outgoing queue of pending notifications empty. This is ok because we 
 space out consecutive batches of notifications. 

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.



[jira] Commented: (ZOOKEEPER-275) Bug in FastLeaderElection

2009-01-23 Thread Patrick Hunt (JIRA)

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-275?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12666786#action_12666786
 ] 

Patrick Hunt commented on ZOOKEEPER-275:


What do you mean by kill qcnxmanager? During the kill is the code 
explicitly closing the port? It might be that the socket isn't being closed 
explicitly? (relies on gc?)

Ensure that the code will explicitly close the port if killed.

If you're done on this issue you might consider submitting the patch for review.


 Bug in FastLeaderElection
 -

 Key: ZOOKEEPER-275
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-275
 Project: Zookeeper
  Issue Type: Bug
  Components: leaderElection
Reporter: Flavio Paiva Junqueira
Assignee: Flavio Paiva Junqueira
 Fix For: 3.1.0

 Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-275.patch


 I found an execution in which leader election does not make progress. Here is 
 the problematic scenario:
 - We have an ensemble of 3 servers, and we start only 2;
 - We let them elect a leader, and then crash the one with lowest id, say S_1 
 (call the other S_2);
 - We restart the crashed server.
 Upon restarting S_1, S_2 has its logical clock more advanced, and S_1 has its 
 logical clock set to 1. Once S_1 receives a notification from S_2, it notices 
 that it is in the wrong round and it advances its logical clock to the same 
 value as S_1. Now, the problem comes exactly in this point because in the 
 current code S_1 resets its vote to its initial vote (its own id and zxid). 
 Since S_2 has already notified S_1, it won't do it again, and we are stuck. 
 The patch I'm submitting fixes this problem by setting the vote of S_1 to the 
 one received if it satisfies the total order predicate (received zxid is 
 higher or received zxid is the same and received id is higher).
 Related to this problem, I noticed that by trying to avoid unnecessary 
 notification duplicates, there could be scenarios in which a server fails 
 before electing a leader and restarts before leader election succeeds. This 
 could happen, for example, when there isn't enough servers available and one 
 available crashes and restarts. I fixed this problem in the attached patch by 
 allowing a server to send a new batch of notifications if there is at least 
 one outgoing queue of pending notifications empty. This is ok because we 
 space out consecutive batches of notifications. 

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.