Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61FC320049D for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 16:11:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 607F216932E; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:11:04 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id B034616932C for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 16:11:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 35762 invoked by uid 500); 9 Aug 2017 14:11:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact issues-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 issues@ignite.apache.org Received: (qmail 35739 invoked by uid 99); 9 Aug 2017 14:11:02 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Aug 2017 14:11:02 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 4B4C61807ED for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:11:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.202 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS=0.8, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hI7mwYfmoSA1 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:11:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 5E2FC5FD91 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:11:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id C32C7E0D28 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:11:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 2786124162 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:11:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:11:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "Andrew Mashenkov (JIRA)" To: issues@ignite.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Updated] (IGNITE-6011) EntryProcessor can make data inconsistent if fails on TX cache. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 archived-at: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 14:11:04 -0000 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6011?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Andrew Mashenkov updated IGNITE-6011: ------------------------------------- Description: I'd expect that with FULL_SYNC write mode and TX cache data always be consistent. And if EntryProcessor fails on primary (or backup) node and pass on backup (or primary) then whole transaction will be rolled back. But I observe old value on node where EP has failed and new value on other nodes. PFA repro attached. Looks like we should apply EP on lock phase and fail TX if there is any failures. UPD: We should also check if ignite has an adequate behavior if possible when Error (not Exception) occurs, e.g. assert in user code. was: I'd expect that with FULL_SYNC write mode and TX cache data always be consistent. And if EntryProcessor fails on primary (or backup) node and pass on backup (or primary) then whole transaction will be rolled back. But I observe old value on node where EP has failed and new value on other nodes. PFA repro attached. Looks like we should apply EP on lock phase and fail TX if there is any failures. > EntryProcessor can make data inconsistent if fails on TX cache. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: IGNITE-6011 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6011 > Project: Ignite > Issue Type: Bug > Components: cache > Reporter: Andrew Mashenkov > Attachments: EntryProcessorBug.java > > > I'd expect that with FULL_SYNC write mode and TX cache data always be consistent. > And if EntryProcessor fails on primary (or backup) node and pass on backup (or primary) then whole transaction will be rolled back. > But I observe old value on node where EP has failed and new value on other nodes. > PFA repro attached. > Looks like we should apply EP on lock phase and fail TX if there is any failures. > UPD: We should also check if ignite has an adequate behavior if possible when Error (not Exception) occurs, e.g. assert in user code. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)