[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-460?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16433068#comment-16433068
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on CURATOR-460:
----------------------------------------
Github user cammckenzie commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/262
My issue is the difference in timing in these events:
-If the connection between client and server is lost a disconnected event
is received essentially immediately.
-If a heart beat is missed it takes 2/3 of the session timeout.
So, we can't reliably do anything with timers because we can't tell the
difference between these two events. In the first case, ideally, we would
inject a LOST event after the negotiated session timeout MS. In the second
case, ideally, we would inject a LOST event after 1/3 of the negotiated session
timeout MS.
For a short session timeout the difference is minimal, but for a longer
session timeout, it will be significant. I guess all we can do is the approach
that we already have where the client of the Curator library can decide what %
of the session timeout they want to use before a session timeout is injected. I
would think that in general, connection loss is more likely than missed heart
beats, so maybe we should just leave the default % of session timeout as it is
at 100% as this will be correct for the most likely case.
> Timed tolerance for connection suspended leads to simultaneous leaders
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CURATOR-460
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CURATOR-460
> Project: Apache Curator
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Recipes
> Affects Versions: 3.3.0, 4.0.0, 4.0.1
> Reporter: Antonio Rafael Rodrigues
> Assignee: Cameron McKenzie
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: ConnectionStateManager.patch,
> Console-leaderSelector1.log, Console-leaderSelector2.log,
> CuratorLeaderSelectorPOC.java, LogApp1.log, LogApp2.log
>
>
> Starting from Curator 3, after losing the connection to zookeeper, curator
> emits a SUSPENDED event and then starts an internal timer, if the time of the
> negotiatied session timeout get hit and curator didn't reconnect to zookeeper
> it emits a LOST event.
> For example :
> Given negotiated session timeout = 40
> ||Time (seconds)||Event||
> |0|SUSPENDED (curator has been disconnected from zookeeper)|
> |40|LOST (curator is still disconnected, it must have been lost the sesion as
> it is disconnected for 40sec)|
> Given this scenario we could ,theoretically, ignore the SUSPENDED event and
> consider the leadership as lost just if the ConnectionStateListener receives
> the LOST event.
> But this feature seems to have introduced a bug (from my point of view)
> *Case of failure*
> ||Time (seconds)||Event||
> |0|Something went wrong with the connected zookeeper (in my case, the network
> inteface of zookeeper's server has gone down). Curator stops hearing heart
> beats from zookeeper, but doesn't lose the connection (from some reason that
> I don't know, if the network interface of the server goes down, Curator
> doesn't lose the connection)|
> |~26.666|SUSPENDED (after 26 seconds without hearing heartbeats, curator
> emits a SUSPENDED event) 26 is from "readTimeout = sessionTimeout * 2 / 3"
> from the class ClientCnxn.java from zookeeper client. At this point, curator
> starts counting 40 sec.|
> |26.666 to 40|During this period, Curator is trying to connect to other
> zookeeper instances but the other instances, in my example case, are also
> uncheachable.|
> |40|Session has expired and the other instance has taken leadership ( in my
> example, the other instance can connect to zookeeper )|
> |66.666|LOST ( after 40sec from SUSPENDED, curator finally sends LOST)|
> As you can see, if we are ignoring the SUSPENDED event, the second
> application instance acquires the leadership ~26 seconds before the first
> instance notice that it lost the leadership.
> I understand it seems to be a very rare case, but either way I think it
> should be addressed.
> *Reproduce it*
> I have came up with a way to reproduce this easily. I know this is not a
> recommended production setup, but it reproduces the problem anyway.
> 1) On a virtual machine, with 2 network interfaces (eth0[192.168.0.101],
> eth1[192.168.0.102]) , I installed one zookeeper instance.
> 2) I setup application1 with the leadership receipe, with 40sec of
> negotiated timeout, pointing just to 192.168.0.101 .Now it is the leader
> 3) I setup application2 with the leadership receipe, with 40sec of
> negotiated timeout, pointing just to 192.168.0.102 .Now it it is NOT the
> leader
> 4) On the server I turn the eth0[192.168.0.101] interface down [ ifconfig
> eth0 down ]
> 5) After 26 seconds, application1 says :
> :ClientCnxn$SendThread@1111] - Client session timed out, have not
> heard from server in 26679ms for sessionid
> ConnectionStateManager@237] - State change: SUSPENDED
> NOTE: I'm ignoring the SUSPENDED event
> 6) After 40 seconds, application2 takes leadership
> 7) After 66 seconds, application1 says :
> ConnectionStateManager@237] - State change: LOST
>
> NOTE: Just at this point, I consider that the application1 has lost
> leadership
> Then, for 26 seconds, we had 2 leaders.
> If you confirm it as a bug, I think I could help.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
