[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12931056#action_12931056 ]
Vishal K commented on ZOOKEEPER-900: ------------------------------------ Hi Flavio, I have a question regarding the logic that determines which connection to retain if peer 1 and peer 2 decide to communicate with each other. Suppose peer 1 connects to peer 2. It first sends its sid as a challenge. Peer 2 reads the sid and determines whether to keep the connection or initiate a connection back to peer 1. Both determine that peer 2 should be the one initiating the connection to peer 1 since sid of peer2 > sid of peer1. I am concerned that they both may not be able to maintain any connection since the handshake is one-way. In the current implementation, peer1 disconnects immediately after writing the challenge to peer 2. It can happen that peer 2 may get a ClosedChannelException before it reads the challenge from peer 1. As a result, peer 2 will not initiate a connection to peer 1. Is this a legitimate problem? If it is, how about we ask peer 2 to send back a ACK after it reads the challenge. Peer 1 will do a timed read() after writing a challenge to peer 2. This will hopefully give peer 2 enough time to read the challenge and take appropriate action. If peer 2 is really slow, peer 1 will timeout on the read operation. -Vishal > 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: Vishal K > Priority: Critical > Fix For: 3.4.0 > > > 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.