incubator-jena-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Helsen <>
Subject Re: TxTDB and JENA-91, JENA-96 and JENA-97
Date Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:49:25 GMT
Thanks Paolo,

However, I don't think this request will help much. The test cases 
currently in the trunk are just not replicating the scenario that our 
(IBM) test cases go through. The key is to make the jena test cases 
reflect our internal test cases better which is tricky (I am still looking 
for what we do different). As for whether something is critical or major 
versus normal, I don't know what conventions you use, but the criteria you 
indicate in (*) don't make sense to me because your ability to reproduce a 
bug has nothing to do with the criticalness of the bug for your clients. 
And as for it to affect other users, they have to adopt it first. Instead 
of running test cases which are known not to reproduce the problem, it 
would be better if others tried to replace TDB 0.8.x with the latest 
snapshot of TDB 0.9.0 and see if their code still runs. You don't even 
have to use the transaction API to run into corruptions. But I don't know 
how many people have tried using TDB 0.9.0 so far. We (IBM) may well be 
the first to stress test it to this scale. Anyone? Note also that our 
framework and test cases run glitch-free in a commercial product on TDB 
0.8.7 and I did not observe any issues when I integrated the latest SDB 
(even using transactions). In other words, from my point of view, the 
current TDB-TX has a problem and we just have to find out what makes it 
happen. One more note: it is always possible that I am doing something 
wrong in how I integrated TDB-TX, so I am not saying that JENA-91, JENA-86 
and JENA-97 are definitely TDB-TX bugs, but for now, I have no other 
choice than to think that they are

I'll keep on it, but I will comment in issue JENA-91 (perhaps for 
documentation purposes, it would be good if others who run the tests also 
comment in there)


Paolo Castagna <>
08/19/2011 07:38 AM
TxTDB and JENA-91, JENA-96 and JENA-97

in relation to (Tx)TDB we have 3 (still open) bug reports: JENA-91,
JENA-96 and JENA-97. They are all flagged as "Critical" (*) and I am
not able to replicate any of them.

I am using Linux, Oracle JDK 1.6, 64-bit OS+JVM and I have been using
TestTransSystem and TestTransSystemMultiDatasets programs included in
the test package of TxTDB.

I would appreciate if you could checkout TxTDB from here:
and run

If everything is fine, you should see something like this:

START (disk, 100 iterations)
000: ..........
010: ..........
020: ..........
030: ..........
040: ..........
050: ..........
060: ..........
070: ..........
080: ..........
090: ..........

DONE (100)

You can change the number of reader/writer concurrent threads:

    static final int numReaderTasks         = 10 ;
    static final int numWriterTasksA        = 10 ;
    static final int numWriterTasksC        = 10 ;

Or number of reads/writes each thread will perform and the pause
in ms between each read/write operation:

    static final int readerSeqRepeats       = 8 ;
    static final int readerMaxPause         = 50 ;

    static final int writerAbortSeqRepeats  = 4 ;
    static final int writerCommitSeqRepeats = 4 ;
    static final int writerMaxPause         = 25 ;

You can switch between direct and mapped mode changing:

    static { SystemTDB.setFileMode(FileMode.mapped) ; }

If you see an error or an exception, please, let us know.
If you run successfully with no errors or exceptions, please, let us know.

Thank you,

(*) I tend to mark JIRA issues as "Major" or "Critical" when they are
confirmed, reproducible and they have affect directly users. None
of these conditions apply to the issues above.

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