[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7763?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17044881#comment-17044881
]
John Blum edited comment on GEODE-7763 at 2/25/20 9:14 PM:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the last
[comment|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7763?focusedCommentId=17039248&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-17039248]...
The only feedback I can offer here is that {{Session}} object (and its
contained {{SessionAttributes}} helper object) must be properly guarded (i.e.
synchronized) inside multi-Threaded environments, such as a Web/Servlet
container, where each HTTP request is processed by a separate Thread, which
means that the {{Session}} object (and {{SessionAttributes}} object) will be
accessed from multiple Threads, per HTTP client request. This is further
exasperated by the fact the some users/customers have client clustered
environments (e.g. multiple Kubernetes Nodes running instances of their _Spring
Session_ enabled Web applications), which is even further exasperated by the
users/customers Web applications making multiple HTTP client requests per
single "logical" HTTP request (such as is the case when a user loads a Web page
that contains AJAX calls, all of which are accessing the same logical Session
object (by ID)).
Anyway, all of this is to say, it would be extremely bad if the Session object
itself changed while being serialized, which is why the GemFire {{Session}} and
{{SessionAttibute}} object implementations in SSDG were carefully crafted with
intentional synchronization in mind.
While SSDG takes care to ensure (as much as possible) the GemFire {{Session}}
and {{SessionAttributes}} object implementations are Thread-safe, it is on the
users to ensure any object they stick in the {{Session}} (e.g. as a Session
attribute value) is Thread-safe.
I hope all this makes sense.
I am on the commit path for the changes [~boglesby] identified in SSDG,
specifically regarding cache Region entry LOCAL_LOAD_CREATE events. I have
already observed an improved SSDG build time.
I am going to do some more experiments with the
{{MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests}}
test class. I have already removed the {{copyOnRead}} setting of *true* it
should no longer be necessary with respect to [GEODE-6152].
I will report back once I have checked in, if you wish to continue the
test/analysis effort with the new SSDG bits.
Thanks!
was (Author: jblum):
Regarding the last
[comment|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7763?focusedCommentId=17039248&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-17039248]...
The only feedback I can offer here is that {{Session}} object (and its
contained {{SessionAttributes}} helper object) must be properly guarded (i.e.
synchronized) inside multi-Threaded environments, such as a Web/Servlet
container, where each HTTP request is processed by a separate Thread, which
means that the {{Session}} object (and {{SessionAttributes}} object) will be
accessed from multiple Threads, per HTTP client request. This is further
exasperated by the fact the some users/customers have client clustered
environments (e.g. multiple Kubernetes Nodes running instances of their _Spring
Session_ enabled Web applications), which is even further exasperated by the
users/customers Web applications making multiple HTTP client requests per
single "logical" HTTP request (such as is the case when a user loads a Web page
that contains AJAX calls, all of which are accessing the same logical Session
object (by ID)).
Anyway, all of this is to say, that is would be extremely bad if the Session
object itself changed while being serialized, which is why the GemFire
{{Session}} and {{SessionAttibute}} object implementations in SSDG were
carefully crafted with intentional synchronization in mind.
While SSDG takes care to ensure (as much as possible) the GemFire {{Session}}
and {{SessionAttributes}} object implementations are Thread-safe, it is on the
users to ensure any object they stick in the {{Session}} (e.g. as a Session
attribute value) is Thread-safe.
I hope all this makes sense.
I am on the commit path for the changes [~boglesby] identified in SSDG,
specifically regarding cache Region entry LOCAL_LOAD_CREATE events. I have
already observed an improved SSDG build time.
I am going to do some more experiments with the
{{MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests}}
test class. I have already removed the {{copyOnRead}} setting of *true* it
should no longer be necessary with respect to [GEODE-6152].
I will report back once I have checked in, if you wish to continue the
test/analysis effort with the new SSDG bits.
Thanks!
> Apache Geode 1.11 severely and negatively impacts performance and resource
> utilization
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GEODE-7763
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7763
> Project: Geode
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: client/server
> Affects Versions: 1.10.0, 1.11.0
> Reporter: John Blum
> Priority: Critical
> Labels: performance
> Attachments: 1.11-client-stats.gfs, 1.11-server-stats.gfs,
> 1.11_thread_dumps.rtf, 1.9-client-stats.gfs, 1.9-server-stats.gfs, 1.9.log,
> apache-geode-1.10-client-server-interaction-output.txt,
> apache-geode-1.10-client-server-startup-output.txt,
> apache-geode-1.11-client-server-interaction-output.txt,
> apache-geode-1.11-client-server-startup-output.txt,
> geode-7763-geode-changes.diff, geode-7763-ssdg-changes.diff
>
>
> This problem was first observed in Apache Geode 1.11.0. The problem was not
> present in Apache Geode 1.9.2. This problem is an issue for Apache Geode
> 1.10 as well!
> After upgrading _Spring Session for Apache Geode_ (SSDG) 2.3 to _Spring Data
> for Apache Geode_ (SDG) Neumann/2.3, which is based on Apache Geode 1.11,
> this problem with SSDG's test suite started occurring.
> _Spring Session for Apache Geode_ (SSDG) 2.2, which is based on _Spring Data
> for Apache Geode_ (SDG) Moore/2.2, pulls in Apache Geode 1.9.2. This problem
> did not occur in SSDG 2.2. with Apache Geode 1.9.2.
> Out of curiosity, I wondered whether this problem affects (i.e. was actually
> introduced in) Apache Geode 1.10.0. So, I configured SSDG 2.3 to pull in SDG
> Moore/2.2 but run with Apache Geode 1.10. The problem occurred with Apache
> Geode 1.10 as well!
> The SSDG test class in question, affected by Geode's deficiencies, is the
> [MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerSessionOperationsIntegrationTests|https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-session-data-geode/blob/2.2.2.RELEASE/spring-session-data-geode/src/integration-test/java/org/springframework/session/data/gemfire/MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests.java].
> The test class was modeled after a customer UC, who were using Spring Session
> and Apache Geode/Pivotal GemFire as the HTTP Session state management
> provider, therefore it simulates their highly concurrent environment.
> The test class has 2 primary parameters: [Thread
> Count|https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-session-data-geode/blob/2.2.2.RELEASE/spring-session-data-geode/src/integration-test/java/org/springframework/session/data/gemfire/MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests.java#L90]
> and the [Workload
> Size|https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-session-data-geode/blob/2.2.2.RELEASE/spring-session-data-geode/src/integration-test/java/org/springframework/session/data/gemfire/MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests.java#L91].
> The "_Workload Size_" should not be confused with the "_Payload Size_" of the
> individual objects passed to the Geode data access operations (i.e. {{gets}},
> {{puts}}, {{removes}}). The "_Workload Size_" merely determines the number
> of {{get}}, {{put}} or {{remove}} operations performed on the (Session)
> Region over the duration of the test run. Certain operations are "favored"
> over others, therefore the number of {{gets}}, {{puts}} and {{removes}} is
> weighted.
> The "_Payload_" in this case is a (HTTP) {{Session}} object and the "size" is
> directly proportional to the number of Session attributes stored in the
> Session.
> As you can see from the [test class
> configuration|https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-session-data-geode/blob/2.2.2.RELEASE/spring-session-data-geode/src/integration-test/java/org/springframework/session/data/gemfire/MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests.java#L90-L91]
> in *SSDG* {{2.2}}, the *Thread Count* was set to *180* and the *Workload
> Size* (or number of Region operations) was set to *10,000*.
> This had to be significantly adjusted in SSDG 2.3 using Apache Geode 1.11
> (and, as it turns out, Apache Geode 1.10 as well), as can be seen in the
> {{2.3.0.M1}} release bits source,
> [here|https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-session-data-geode/blob/2.3.0.M1/spring-session-data-geode/src/integration-test/java/org/springframework/session/data/gemfire/MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests.java#L94-L95].
> It turns out different combinations of the Thread Count (number of workers,
> or "concurrent Sessions") and Workload Size ultimately determine whether this
> test class passes or not.
> In other words, if I increase the Thread Count, then the Workload Size must
> decrease, otherwise the test fails! If I increase the Workload Size, then
> the Thread Count must decrease, otherwise again the test fails!
> I tried with different combinations of Thread Count and Workload Size until
> the test passed. More often than not 180 Threads with 3000 Regions
> operations worked, but was right on the cusp of failing, therefore, I settled
> on 180 Threads (which nearly matches the customers environment of 200
> concurrent client Sessions) and 2000 concurrent Region operations.
> The point of the test class is to assert the state of the Session is
> consistent at the end of the test run.
> However, before this test can even finish, the client, as in the
> {{ClientCache}} instance, starts failing with Exceptions, specifically:
> {code:java}
> java.lang.RuntimeException: Session Access Task Failed
> at
> org.springframework.session.data.gemfire.MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests.safeFutureGet(MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests.java:298)
> at
> java.util.stream.ReferencePipeline$4$1.accept(ReferencePipeline.java:210)
> at
> java.util.ArrayList$ArrayListSpliterator.forEachRemaining(ArrayList.java:1382)
> at java.util.stream.AbstractPipeline.copyInto(AbstractPipeline.java:481)
> at
> java.util.stream.AbstractPipeline.wrapAndCopyInto(AbstractPipeline.java:471)
> at
> java.util.stream.ReduceOps$ReduceOp.evaluateSequential(ReduceOps.java:708)
> at java.util.stream.AbstractPipeline.evaluate(AbstractPipeline.java:234)
> at java.util.stream.IntPipeline.reduce(IntPipeline.java:456)
> at java.util.stream.IntPipeline.sum(IntPipeline.java:414)
> at
> org.springframework.session.data.gemfire.MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests.runSessionWorkload(MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests.java:313)
> at
> org.springframework.session.data.gemfire.MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests.concurrentSessionAccessIsCorrect(MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests.java:324)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> at
> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
> at
> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
> at
> org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:50)
> at
> org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:12)
> at
> org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:47)
> at
> org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:17)
> at
> org.springframework.test.context.junit4.statements.RunBeforeTestExecutionCallbacks.evaluate(RunBeforeTestExecutionCallbacks.java:74)
> at
> org.springframework.test.context.junit4.statements.RunAfterTestExecutionCallbacks.evaluate(RunAfterTestExecutionCallbacks.java:84)
> at
> org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:26)
> at
> org.springframework.test.context.junit4.statements.RunBeforeTestMethodCallbacks.evaluate(RunBeforeTestMethodCallbacks.java:75)
> at
> org.springframework.test.context.junit4.statements.RunAfterTestMethodCallbacks.evaluate(RunAfterTestMethodCallbacks.java:86)
> at
> org.springframework.test.context.junit4.statements.SpringRepeat.evaluate(SpringRepeat.java:84)
> at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runLeaf(ParentRunner.java:325)
> at
> org.springframework.test.context.junit4.SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.java:251)
> at
> org.springframework.test.context.junit4.SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.java:97)
> at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:290)
> at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:71)
> at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:288)
> at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:58)
> at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:268)
> at
> org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:26)
> at
> org.springframework.test.context.junit4.statements.RunBeforeTestClassCallbacks.evaluate(RunBeforeTestClassCallbacks.java:61)
> at
> org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:27)
> at
> org.springframework.test.context.junit4.statements.RunAfterTestClassCallbacks.evaluate(RunAfterTestClassCallbacks.java:70)
> at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:363)
> at
> org.springframework.test.context.junit4.SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.run(SpringJUnit4ClassRunner.java:190)
> at org.junit.runner.JUnitCore.run(JUnitCore.java:137)
> at
> com.intellij.junit4.JUnit4IdeaTestRunner.startRunnerWithArgs(JUnit4IdeaTestRunner.java:68)
> at
> com.intellij.rt.junit.IdeaTestRunner$Repeater.startRunnerWithArgs(IdeaTestRunner.java:33)
> at
> com.intellij.rt.junit.JUnitStarter.prepareStreamsAndStart(JUnitStarter.java:230)
> at com.intellij.rt.junit.JUnitStarter.main(JUnitStarter.java:58)
> Caused by: java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException:
> org.springframework.dao.DataAccessResourceFailureException: Pool unexpected
> socket timed out on client connection=Pooled Connection to localhost:60964:
> Connection[DESTROYED]). Server unreachable: could not connect after 1
> attempts; nested exception is
> org.apache.geode.cache.client.ServerConnectivityException: Pool unexpected
> socket timed out on client connection=Pooled Connection to localhost:60964:
> Connection[DESTROYED]). Server unreachable: could not connect after 1 attempts
> at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.report(FutureTask.java:122)
> at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.get(FutureTask.java:192)
> at
> org.springframework.session.data.gemfire.MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests.safeFutureGet(MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests.java:295)
> ... 43 more
> Caused by: org.springframework.dao.DataAccessResourceFailureException: Pool
> unexpected socket timed out on client connection=Pooled Connection to
> localhost:60964: Connection[DESTROYED]). Server unreachable: could not
> connect after 1 attempts; nested exception is
> org.apache.geode.cache.client.ServerConnectivityException: Pool unexpected
> socket timed out on client connection=Pooled Connection to localhost:60964:
> Connection[DESTROYED]). Server unreachable: could not connect after 1 attempts
> at
> org.springframework.data.gemfire.GemfireCacheUtils.convertGemfireAccessException(GemfireCacheUtils.java:235)
> at
> org.springframework.data.gemfire.GemfireAccessor.convertGemFireAccessException(GemfireAccessor.java:93)
> at
> org.springframework.data.gemfire.GemfireTemplate.put(GemfireTemplate.java:200)
> at
> org.springframework.session.data.gemfire.GemFireOperationsSessionRepository.doSave(GemFireOperationsSessionRepository.java:226)
> at
> org.springframework.session.data.gemfire.GemFireOperationsSessionRepository.save(GemFireOperationsSessionRepository.java:186)
> at
> org.springframework.session.data.gemfire.AbstractGemFireIntegrationTests.save(AbstractGemFireIntegrationTests.java:409)
> at
> org.springframework.session.data.gemfire.MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests.lambda$newAddSessionAttributeTask$2(MultiThreadedHighlyConcurrentClientServerHttpSessionAccessIntegrationTests.java:216)
> at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:266)
> at
> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149)
> at
> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:624)
> at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
> Caused by: org.apache.geode.cache.client.ServerConnectivityException: Pool
> unexpected socket timed out on client connection=Pooled Connection to
> localhost:60964: Connection[DESTROYED]). Server unreachable: could not
> connect after 1 attempts
> at
> org.apache.geode.cache.client.internal.OpExecutorImpl.handleException(OpExecutorImpl.java:659)
> at
> org.apache.geode.cache.client.internal.OpExecutorImpl.handleException(OpExecutorImpl.java:501)
> at
> org.apache.geode.cache.client.internal.OpExecutorImpl.execute(OpExecutorImpl.java:153)
> at
> org.apache.geode.cache.client.internal.OpExecutorImpl.execute(OpExecutorImpl.java:108)
> at
> org.apache.geode.cache.client.internal.PoolImpl.execute(PoolImpl.java:772)
> at org.apache.geode.cache.client.internal.PutOp.execute(PutOp.java:89)
> at
> org.apache.geode.cache.client.internal.ServerRegionProxy.put(ServerRegionProxy.java:159)
> at
> org.apache.geode.internal.cache.LocalRegion.serverPut(LocalRegion.java:3035)
> at
> org.apache.geode.internal.cache.LocalRegion.cacheWriteBeforePut(LocalRegion.java:3152)
> at
> org.apache.geode.internal.cache.ProxyRegionMap.basicPut(ProxyRegionMap.java:238)
> at
> org.apache.geode.internal.cache.LocalRegion.virtualPut(LocalRegion.java:5580)
> at
> org.apache.geode.internal.cache.LocalRegionDataView.putEntry(LocalRegionDataView.java:162)
> at
> org.apache.geode.internal.cache.LocalRegion.basicPut(LocalRegion.java:5036)
> at
> org.apache.geode.internal.cache.LocalRegion.validatedPut(LocalRegion.java:1635)
> at
> org.apache.geode.internal.cache.LocalRegion.put(LocalRegion.java:1622)
> at
> org.apache.geode.internal.cache.AbstractRegion.put(AbstractRegion.java:442)
> at
> org.springframework.data.gemfire.GemfireTemplate.put(GemfireTemplate.java:197)
> ... 8 more
> {code}
> Attached to this issue are log output files from each of my runs using Apache
> Geode 1.10 and 1.11.
> The log files serve 2 purposes: 1) to show the version of Apache Geode used
> and 2) the errors occurs on the client and server during the run.
> Any lines in the log output prefixed with "{{[FORK]}}" originates from the
> cache server. The other lines come from the client. There is only a single
> client and server in this test case.
> It takes a bit of initial time during the run for the failures to start
> occurring, which is why this seems like a resource utilization problem.
> After first, I suspected issues with the client Pool configuration, or
> {{CacheServer}} configuration, adjusting timeouts and so on. I even
> suspected memory being an issue for the client and server processes, upping
> each to 2 GB+. However, it turns out none of the changes made a bit of
> difference. And the truth of the matter is, this (existing) configuration
> worked seamlessly until I upgraded to Apache Geode 1.10+ (specifically, 1.11).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
