ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Ignite-1.5 Release
Date Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:40:16 GMT
Vladislav,

I started to review the latest changes and have couple of questions:

1. latest changes are here - https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/120? Is
that correct?
2. org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.datastructures.GridCacheSemaphoreImpl.Sync#nodeMap
is accessed in both sync and unsync context. Are you sure this is fine.
3. As far as failing test - can you please isolate it into separate junit
or point out existing one?

--Yakov

2015-11-11 12:33 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com>:

> Yakov,
>
> sorry  for running a bit late.
>
> > Vladislav, do you have any updates for
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-638? Or any questions?
> >
> > --Yakov
>
> I have problems with some fail-over scenarios;
> It seems that if the two nodes are in the middle of acquiring or releasing
> the semaphore,
> and one of them fails, all nodes get:
>
> [09:36:38,509][ERROR][ignite-#13%pub-null%][GridCacheSemaphoreImpl]
> <ignite-atomics-sys-cache> Failed to compare and set:
> o.a.i.i.processors.datastructures.GridCacheSemaphoreImpl$Sync$1@5528b728
> class org.apache.ignite.internal.cluster.ClusterTopologyCheckedException:
> Failed to acquire lock for keys (primary node left grid, retry transaction
> if possible) [keys=[UserKeyCacheObjectImpl [val=GridCacheInternalKeyImpl
> [name=ac83b8cb-3052-49a6-9301-81b20b0ecf3a], hasValBytes=true]],
> node=c321fcc4-5db5-4b03-9811-6a5587f2c253]
> ...
> Caused by: class
> org.apache.ignite.internal.cluster.ClusterTopologyCheckedException: Failed
> to acquire lock for keys (primary node left grid, retry transaction if
> possible) [keys=[UserKeyCacheObjectImpl [val=GridCacheInternalKeyImpl
> [name=ac83b8cb-3052-49a6-9301-81b20b0ecf3a], hasValBytes=true]],
> node=c321fcc4-5db5-4b03-9811-6a5587f2c253]
> at
>
> org.apache.ignite.internal.processors.cache.distributed.dht.colocated.GridDhtColocatedLockFuture.newTopologyException(GridDhtColocatedLockFuture.java:1199)
> ... 10 more
>
>
> I'm still trying to find out how to exactly reproduce this behavior,
> I'll send you more details once I try few more things.
>
> I am still using partitioned cache, does it make sense to use replicated
> cache instead?
>
>
> Other than that, I'm done with everything else.
>
> Thanks,
> Vladisav
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message