db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Suresh Thalamati <suresh.thalam...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Updated: (DERBY-801) Allow parallel access to data files.
Date Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:03:43 GMT
Anders Morken (JIRA) wrote:
>      [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-801?page=all ]
> Anders Morken updated DERBY-801:
> --------------------------------
>     Attachment: DERBY-801-6.patch
> DERBY-801-6.patch remedies the noise from the iosInProgress sanity checking by checking
the committed drop state before croaking. 

>I've run jdbcapi/LobLengthTest.junit 100 times in a row now without seeing any problems,

> and I used to see the problem once every four or five runs without this patch.
>  RAFContainer4.java |    7 ++++++-
>  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Thanks for continuing to improve the fix for this problem,  Anders.

> I'm not sure checking for the committed drop state in the readPage method is something

>we want to do - flushing the cache into a black hole is one thing, trying to read data
>is supposed to be gone is another - I think I'd want to know if we had some logic that
>reading from a dropped container. =)

I doubt reading from a commit dropped container happen through the 
readPage() call in parallel  to drops.  Locks/Latches/flags should 
make sure that does not occur.  I think only time we may read from the 
dropped container may be during recovery, if there is a crash just 
before stub was created for the dropped container, if container marked 
commit dropped , then I think only header is read , but that info is 
read by reading directly few bytes from the first page.

> I've sort of got a feeling that maybe we are masking a problem here - 
> should anyone (even the cache?) write to a dropped container? 

Pages are discarded from cache before the container is stubbed.  See
(removeContainer.pageCache.discard(identity .

> Maybe we should remove 
> pages destined for a dying container from the cache when the 
>> container is dropped? =)

I agree with removing/closing container does not seem to be the right 
thing to do when I/O is in progress. Having said that, I am also 
wondering if it is a over-kill to add more synchronization for this 
case. May be catching for ClosedChannelException is  good enough .

One more thing I alos noticed going through the code again is 
DEBUG_PRINT("RAFContainer4"," .. statements. As Knut mentioned , they 
of no use. No one looks at them unless a test fails.  If those cases 
should not happen , then throwing an ASSERT failure is better, 
otherwise please remove those PRINT statements.


View raw message