hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Devaraj Das (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-10490) Simplify RpcClient code
Date Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:56:28 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10490?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13898298#comment-13898298
] 

Devaraj Das commented on HBASE-10490:
-------------------------------------

I can't say for sure if in HBase anyone configures infinite timeout (rpcTimeout = 0) on the
sockets but the pingery would have protected the client if it wanted to wait for a while in
the situations where the server is busy. So if the rpcTimeout is passed as zero, the socket
timeout is set to the ping interval. That means the client won't retry when the timeout happens.
It'll just send a ping to figure out whether the server is still alive. If so, then it'll
continue to wait (as opposed to resending the request).

But I agree that if no one uses rpcTimeout = 0, we could remove the ping stuff.

> Simplify RpcClient code
> -----------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-10490
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10490
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Client
>    Affects Versions: 0.99.0
>            Reporter: Nicolas Liochon
>            Assignee: Nicolas Liochon
>             Fix For: 0.99.0
>
>         Attachments: 10490.v1.patch
>
>
> The code is complex. Here is a set of proposed changes, for trunk:
> 1) remove PingInputStream. if rpcTimeout > 0 it just rethrows the exception. I expect
that we always have a rpcTimeout. So we can remove the code.
> 2) remove the sendPing: instead, just close the connection if it's not used for a while,
instead of trying to ping the server.
> 3) remove maxIddle time: to avoid the confusion if someone has overwritten the conf.
> 4) remove shouldCloseConnection: it was more or less synchronized with closeException.
Having a single variable instead of two avoids the synchro
> 5) remove lastActivity: instead of trying to have an exact timeout, just kill the connection
after some time. lastActivity could be set to wrong values if the server was slow to answer.
> 6) hopefully, a better management of the exception; we don't use the close exception
of someone else as an input for another one.  Same goes for interruption.
> I may have something wrong in the code. I will review it myself again. Feedback welcome,
especially on the ping removal: I hope I got all the use cases. 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)

Mime
View raw message