[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12928011#action_12928011
]
Flavio Junqueira commented on ZOOKEEPER-900:
--------------------------------------------
Hi Vishal, I like your proposal, it seems reasonable and not difficult to
implement.
On your questions:
# I don't think it is necessary to kill a pair SenderWorker/RecvWorker every
time, and I'd certainly support changing it;
# I'm not sure where you're suggesting to introduce a delay. In the FLE code, a
server sends a new batch of notifications if it changes its vote or if it times
out waiting for a new notification. This timeout value increases over time. I
was actually thinking that we should reset the timeout value upon receiving a
notification. I think this is a bug....
Given that it is your proposal, I'd be happy to let you take a stab at it and
help you out if you need a hand. Does it make sense for you?
> 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 K
> Assignee: Flavio Junqueira
> Priority: Critical
>
> 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 is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
