On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Martin Sivak <msi...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> So I think that we still have to fix it somehow. >>> Are we really sure that nr_retries=2 and _timeout=20 are really the magic >>> numbers that works on every conditions? >> >> >> No, it should be tested on HE environment and it depends on your usage. > > What does happen when only timeout is specified and the connection > fails after the command is sent? What are the defaults in that case?
Timeout defines how long we are going to wait for a response. It is there in the code for a bit of time already and it is not related to reconnect. The only control that we expose for reconnect is number of retires. > > Martin > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Irit Goihman <igoih...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Simone Tiraboschi <stira...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Martin Perina <mper...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> As Irit mentioned the provided reproduction steps are wrong (misuse of the >>>> code) and she posted correct example showing that jsonrpc code works as >>>> expected. So Martin/Simone are you using somewhere in HE code the original >>>> example that is misusing the client? >>> >>> >>> According to >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1527155#c9 >>> It works in Irit example, at least on that host with that load and timings, >>> setting nr_retries=2 and _timeout=20 >>> >>> While we have _timeout=5 and no custom nr_retries >>> https://github.com/oVirt/ovirt-hosted-engine-ha/blob/master/ovirt_hosted_engine_ha/lib/util.py#L417 >>> >>> So I think that we still have to fix it somehow. >>> Are we really sure that nr_retries=2 and _timeout=20 are really the magic >>> numbers that works on every conditions? >> >> >> No, it should be tested on HE environment and it depends on your usage. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Oved Ourfali <oourf...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> From the latest comment it doesn't seem like a blocker to me. >>>>> Martin S. - your thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbona...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> We have a proposed blocker for the release: >>>>>> 1527155InfravdsmBindings-APIigoihman@redhat.comNEWjsonrpc reconnect >>>>>> logic does not work and gets stuckurgentunspecifiedovirt-4.2.004:30:30 >>>>>> >>>>>> Please review and either approve the blcoker or postpone to 4.2.1. >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> SANDRO BONAZZOLA >>>>>> >>>>>> ASSOCIATE MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA ENG VIRTUALIZATION R&D >>>>>> >>>>>> Red Hat EMEA >>>>>> >>>>>> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Devel mailing list >>>>>> Devel@ovirt.org >>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Martin Perina >>>> Associate Manager, Software Engineering >>>> Red Hat Czech s.r.o. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> IRIT GOIHMAN >> >> SOFTWARE ENGINEER >> >> EMEA VIRTUALIZATION R&D >> >> Red Hat EMEA >> >> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. >> @redhatnews Red Hat Red Hat > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
