[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-329?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14197418#comment-14197418
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-329:
--------------------------------------
Github user tedxia commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/268#issuecomment-61752674
I test this patch on our product cluster, with five machine, each with 6
workers as max;
The topology based on trident run about 5 hours without fails.
Then I kill one worker called A, then I found the log below on worker
B.Worker B don't exit as worker A died.
```
2014-11-04 17:18:08 b.s.m.n.Client [INFO] Reconnect started for
Netty-Client-A/xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:21812... [47]
2014-11-04 17:18:12 b.s.m.n.Client [INFO] Reconnect started for
Netty-Client-A/xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:21812... [48]
2014-11-04 17:18:16 b.s.m.n.Client [INFO] Reconnect started for
Netty-Client-A/xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:21812... [49]
2014-11-04 17:18:20 b.s.m.n.Client [INFO] Reconnect started for
Netty-Client-A/xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:21812... [50]
2014-11-04 17:18:24 b.s.m.n.Client [INFO] Closing Netty Client
Netty-Client-A/xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:21812
2014-11-04 17:18:24 b.s.m.n.Client [INFO] Waiting for pending batchs to be
sent with Netty-Client-A/xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:21812..., timeout: 600000ms, pendings: 0
2014-11-04 17:18:24 b.s.m.n.Client [INFO] Client is being closed, and does
not take requests any more, drop the messages...
2014-11-04 17:18:24 b.s.m.n.Client [INFO] Client is being closed, and does
not take requests any more, drop the messages...
```
As worker A died, nimbus reschedule a new worker F, then worker B connect
to worker F.
```
2014-11-04 17:16:53 b.s.m.n.Client [INFO] Reconnect started for
Netty-Client-A/xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:21812... [21]
2014-11-04 17:16:54 b.s.m.n.Client [INFO] Reconnect started for
Netty-Client-F/xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:21813... [17]
2014-11-04 17:16:54 b.s.m.n.Client [INFO] connection established to a
remote host Netty-Client-F/xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:21813, [id: 0xbf721a18,
/xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:63811 => F/xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:21813]
2014-11-04 17:16:55 b.s.m.n.Client [INFO] Reconnect started for
Netty-Client-A/10.2.201.65:21812... [22]
```
worker B connect to worker F successful before worker B close connection
with Worker A.
Because this is our product cluster, I rewrite the hostname and ip in the
log.
> Add Option to Config Message handling strategy when connection timeout
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: STORM-329
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-329
> Project: Apache Storm
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.9.2-incubating
> Reporter: Sean Zhong
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: Netty
> Fix For: 0.9.2-incubating
>
> Attachments: storm-329.patch, worker-kill-recover3.jpg
>
>
> This is to address a [concern brought
> up|https://github.com/apache/incubator-storm/pull/103#issuecomment-43632986]
> during the work at STORM-297:
> {quote}
> [~revans2] wrote: Your logic makes since to me on why these calls are
> blocking. My biggest concern around the blocking is in the case of a worker
> crashing. If a single worker crashes this can block the entire topology from
> executing until that worker comes back up. In some cases I can see that being
> something that you would want. In other cases I can see speed being the
> primary concern and some users would like to get partial data fast, rather
> then accurate data later.
> Could we make it configurable on a follow up JIRA where we can have a max
> limit to the buffering that is allowed, before we block, or throw data away
> (which is what zeromq does)?
> {quote}
> If some worker crash suddenly, how to handle the message which was supposed
> to be delivered to the worker?
> 1. Should we buffer all message infinitely?
> 2. Should we block the message sending until the connection is resumed?
> 3. Should we config a buffer limit, try to buffer the message first, if the
> limit is met, then block?
> 4. Should we neither block, nor buffer too much, but choose to drop the
> messages, and use the built-in storm failover mechanism?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
