From dev-return-48848-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@ignite.apache.org Tue Dec 24 09:11:04 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 580B718065E for ; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 10:11:04 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 22059 invoked by uid 500); 24 Dec 2019 09:11:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@ignite.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ignite.apache.org Received: (qmail 22047 invoked by uid 99); 24 Dec 2019 09:11:03 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 09:11:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id D4A1C1A3452 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 09:11:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-ec2-va.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SG6JD6PMM1G0 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 09:11:00 +0000 (UTC) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.208.47; helo=mail-ed1-f47.google.com; envelope-from=alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com; receiver= Received: from mail-ed1-f47.google.com (mail-ed1-f47.google.com [209.85.208.47]) by mx1-ec2-va.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-ec2-va.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 6D816BC509 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 09:11:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-f47.google.com with SMTP id m8so17445386edi.13 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 01:11:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=kO5J7kSJm7lFQ+0iFoXgwQc9uOEgGLGbxk0nosHrmko=; b=I1WCBW1O9AEfMJ6SqZREtHNyJIb4XRCbQ7lqiH8A2XahXcq54Durcfa3zuVS6K2aB1 UqEivgiGBq3QHZE/H5OKG0bai4PWwnDFe+rZcLnAJIR3IUiTaO/vYfr/G6mIQgryy++3 pwlrKrC8djxhIYCDhEsC97vIeYuVG78rgSdS32YFjJ4/9C335Pj9x6E60q9yjNFJQFV1 N8ddA5s0nCkplvNnrWb9cgmkTW3/n8EgFTv0+hlOp1qxgKLjwQRL7GEaK1yUmey0GRLO 0h3JYw1Y8J4GQ8k8U+55M/hTv+iEAWZvhIqoHaycfu8MkqCKly2FCPcp5QV9YH09WqWh ggbA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=kO5J7kSJm7lFQ+0iFoXgwQc9uOEgGLGbxk0nosHrmko=; b=cYf4Tvby8Mq4lyCgDCq6BoXsn0mE5lP8EZfeZE4ncr0risrc2gyameTMC5P2r2uesL RtW6Opwho1Wds5qiUBz+xT4oXkftqgwDcbDOf4vOGd2ZY5iDJ+C09Ffol4zrmcpqaj+M PmsbmQGySbDRo9u6yoUCDKFQXk6CCOQiR1YNt0zUieuns1lN97Szw1MmtvyoPBi7U6Af OvzxtrTDdNHf3Sn7rDm06YIjaQDUqZF9CppxlpoSLWE/JEjgE3hfz3gahjKe29BX2O3p eCNG7sqqmMgMXsCJqz7cVGIw4vVY3P3rKByDMBTHEuzOxlM2jXGF55FlLp6eR6m+lp6f coyA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVib4MVfHbG6mom0juq2XcY6lkhHB2AZT+liTyO6Uhp/pwX05oC Zp+eWNSeTBnKjQKWsd/lF/wSDeWgxo2InVZr69CTY5zZg/8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwQsjE5gkR8liLpU595KjjRqtsQ0yZ7mS7Y7CQOcc44QJCIbHhoPPacfMKj4qmEV8HhF6ubVMsKpQvBCnECasA= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2cd6:: with SMTP id r22mr18294595ejr.313.1577178659120; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 01:10:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <75F387FE-6612-4B77-B4EF-95CC38227610@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Alexey Goncharuk Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 12:10:48 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Discovery-based services deployment guarantees question To: dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b96a13059a6f85cc" --000000000000b96a13059a6f85cc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, this is exactly the case. The service is deployed from node A, the proxy is created on node B, and "service not found" exception gets thrown to a user anyway. Perhaps, the retry happens too fast? Created a ticket [1]. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12490 =D0=BF=D0=BD, 23 =D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BA. 2019 =D0=B3. =D0=B2 22:08, Vyacheslav = Daradur : > Hi, Alexey > > Please attach a reproducer to the ticket. > > As far as I remember we have the following behaviour for the proxies: > > Let's assume you have deployed service from node A, then: > * if you invoke service locally from node A - it is guaranteed to > service to be deployed and ready to work > * if you take a proxy from node A to remote node B right after deploy > - there is might be a race between disco-spi (a message which releases > deployed service) and comm-spi (remote call works via Compute over > comm-spi), but it shouldn't affect end-users because the failed > request will be retried in this case > > > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 6:55 PM Alexey Goncharuk > wrote: > > > > Nikolay, > > > > Yes, I've rechecked, the new service processor is being used. I'll file= a > > bug shortly. > > > > =D0=BF=D0=BD, 23 =D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BA. 2019 =D0=B3. =D0=B2 17:33, =D0=9D= =D0=B8=D0=BA=D0=BE=D0=BB=D0=B0=D0=B9 =D0=98=D0=B6=D0=B8=D0=BA=D0=BE=D0=B2 <= nizhikov@apache.org>: > > > > > Alexey, are you sure, you are testing new service framework? > > > > > > Is yes - you definitely should file a bug. > > > > > > > 23 =D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BA. 2019 =D0=B3., =D0=B2 17:02, Alexey Goncharuk= < > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> > > > =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0): > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > I have a question based on one of my recent tests debugging. > > > > > > > > The test is related to Ignite services. I noticed that sometimes a > proxy > > > > invocation of a newly deployed service fails because the service > cannot > > > be > > > > found. I managed to reduce the test to a simple "start two nodes, > deploy > > > a > > > > service, create a proxy, invoke the proxy" scenario. The proxy > invocation > > > > fails in about ~80% of runs. > > > > > > > > As far as I remember, the new discovery-based service deployment wa= s > > > > supposed to be synchronous, so not only non-proxy service instances > > > should > > > > work, but the proxies as well. Was my understanding correct? Should= I > > > file > > > > a bug for the observed behavior? > > > > > > > > --AG > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > --000000000000b96a13059a6f85cc--