hadoop-zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Flavio Junqueira (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (ZOOKEEPER-900) FLE implementation should be improved to use non-blocking sockets
Date Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:04:14 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-900?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12932974#action_12932974
] 

Flavio Junqueira commented on ZOOKEEPER-900:
--------------------------------------------

+1, Great job, Vishal! On your question, the problem is that it is not easy to decide when
a peer can close its connections because it doesn't know in which state others are and it
might need to receive and respond to notifications. In any case, if have an idea for how to
do it and want to discuss it further, we could create a new jira and work there, since this
is a separate issue.

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


Mime
View raw message