zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Fines <scottfi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Input on a change
Date Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:15:34 GMT
On some JVMs (the HotSpot for sure, but maybe others too?) there's a JVM
for performing actions on OutOfMemoryErrors (-XX:OnOutOfMemoryError="<cmd
args>, -XX:+HeapDumpOnOutOfMemoryError and maybe some others that I can't
remember off the top of my head). Will these triggers still be fired, or
will the catch-all prevent them?

I'm still +1 for the change no matter what, but it's probably a good idea
to mention that in the docs if they don't work.


On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Camille Fournier <camille@apache.org>wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> I'm trying to evaluate a patch that Jeremy Stribling has submitted, and I'd
> like some feedback from the user base on it.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1442
> The current behavior of ZK when we get an uncaught exception is to log it
> and try to move on. This is arguably not the right thing to do, and will
> possibly cause ZK to limp along with a bad VM (say, in an OOM state) for
> longer than it should.
> The patch proposes that when we get an instance of java.lang.Error, we
> should do a system.exit to fast-fail the process. With the possible
> exception of ThreadDeath (which may or may not be an unrecoverable system
> state depending on the thread), I think this makes sense, but I would like
> to hear from others if they have an opinion. I think it's better to kill
> the process and let your monitoring services detect process death (and thus
> restart) than possibly linger unresponsive for a while, are there scenarios
> that we're missing where this error can occur and you wouldn't want the
> process killed?
> Thanks for your feedback,
> Camille

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