Alberto, give us a mention on the draft PR and we can think about how it might
be tested too... might get more ideas from the group...
Thanks,
EB
On 9/18/20, 3:51 AM, "Alberto Bustamante Reyes"
<alberto.bustamante.re...@est.tech> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for you messages, here you are some answers:
Dave:
Are there cases in which one or two timeouts are followed by a successful
retry? Or does one timeout *always* end with more timeouts and, ultimately,
an IO error?
Not in our use case, which is kiling a server. In this case, timeouts will
end up on an IO error.
If a straight-up change solves a constant headache, as you suggest,
Alberto, and as Blake concurs, that sounds like the way to go. Why introduce a
new option or property if the user will always prefer one behavior over the
other?
The fix works fine for our use case, I suggested the alternatives to make
it something optional in case there were concerns about it. In other projects I
have been involved in the past, we had to deal with temporary network problems.
So most of the times, if a timeout had a consequence (so to say), that was not
applied after just one timeout.
But its true that in this use case, a timeout always ends up on an IO
error, as I said. So if you dont see any problem with cleaning the metadata
just after one timeout, then we dont need any control mechanism for it.
Blake:
Given that attempts to retrieve metadata after the C++ cache is closed are
a constant headache for Geode Native development, I am generally in favor of
anything that potentially reduces the number of times/places this happens. If
we've failed the handshake, it's very unlikely things will correct themselves
without outside intervention, so this fix is probably goodness. I'd go ahead
and submit a PR when you think it's solid.
Good to hear that. The code changes in the draft PR are ready, I just need
to figure out the testing part. Im not sure how I will add a test because it
would be the same test as the one added for GEODE-8231...
BR/
Alberto B.
________________________________
De: Ernie Burghardt <burghar...@vmware.com>
Enviado: jueves, 17 de septiembre de 2020 22:08
Para: dev@geode.apache.org <dev@geode.apache.org>
Asunto: Re: Clean C++ client metadata in timeouts
Let's please consider how this would controlled and look for ways other
than YetAnotherProperty
Thanks,
EB
On 9/17/20, 12:59 PM, "Dave Barnes" <dbar...@apache.org> wrote:
If a straight-up change solves a constant headache, as you suggest,
Alberto, and as Blake concurs, that sounds like the way to go.
Why introduce a new option or property if the user will always prefer
one
behavior over the other? (And from a docs perspective, who needs another
optional property, anyway?)
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Blake Bender <bbl...@vmware.com> wrote:
> Given that attempts to retrieve metadata after the C++ cache is
closed are
> a constant headache for Geode Native development, I am generally in
favor
> of anything that potentially reduces the number of times/places this
> happens. If we've failed the handshake, it's very unlikely things
will
> correct themselves without outside intervention, so this fix is
probably
> goodness. I'd go ahead and submit a PR when you think it's solid.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Blake
>
>
> On 9/17/20, 9:36 AM, "Dave Barnes" <dbar...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Alberto,
> Are there cases in which one or two timeouts are followed by a
> successful
> retry? Or does one timeout *always* end with more timeouts and,
> ultimately,
> an IO error?
> If timeouts can sometimes be followed by successful retries, and
> re-trying
> is the current default behavior, then I agree that introducing a
> setting
> that effectively eliminates re-tries should be the developer's
choice.
> In that case, I suggest that the option should not be a low-level
> choice of
> "handle the metadata in a way that eliminates retries" but should
be
> higher
> level, like "when attempting to connect, try only once, instead of
> re-trying (the default behavior)."
> -Dave
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 7:42 AM Alberto Bustamante Reyes
> <alberto.bustamante.re...@est.tech> wrote:
>
> > Hi geode-dev,
> >
> > I have a question about the c++ client.
> >
> > Some months ago we merged GEODE-8231 to solve a problem we
observed
> > regarding the native client was trying to connect to stopped
server.
> > GEODE-8231 solution consists on remove the client metadata when
an
> "IO
> > error in handshake" exception is received. This fix solved most
of
> our
> > problems, but it has been observed that sometimes when a server
is
> stopped
> > the errors received in the client are not the same and this "IO
> error in
> > handshake" takes up to a minute to appear. So during that time,
the
> client
> > is still trying to connect to the offline server.
> >
> > As the error received during that time is "timeout in
handshake", we
> have
> > tested modyfing the solution of GEODE-8213 to make the client to
> remove the
> > metadata once a timeout error is received (here is a draft with
the
> code:
> >
>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fgeode-native%2Fpull%2F651&data=02%7C01%7Cburghardte%40vmware.com%7C81149957da084848bb4308d85bc0bd0f%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637360230711375298&sdata=3%2FYLIk8yPJdhYTJ2mrw65JHxQYxNyVy4sdQkAAvMlF8%3D&reserved=0).
> With this change in
> > place, the behavior is ok.
> >
> >
> > But I would like to check your opinion about this check, because
> this will
> > cause that a single timeout will cause the removal of the client
> metadata,
> > which maybe its not the best solution. I thought about different
> > alternatives:
> >
> > - Wait until a given number of timeouts in a row have been
received
> from
> > the same server to remove the metadata
> > - Make this "remove-metadata-after-timeout" something optional
that
> could
> > be configured if needed
> >
> > As this will misalign the behavior of Java and C++ clients,
making
> this an
> > optional configuration will be more appropriate, to keep the
default
> c++
> > client behavior as the Java client.
> >
> > BR/
> >
> > Alberto B.
> >
>
>
