On 20. juli. 2009, at 17.35, Dustin wrote:
I filed http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=68
Can you please update it with the version you're running?
Meanwhile, there needs to at least be a test for it. I'll see if I
can do that today.
We talked about this issue on IRC earlier today, and it turns out that
this is on memcached 1.2.2... I think we should await further
investigation until they can reproduce the bug on 1.4..
Cheers,
Trond
On Jul 20, 7:53 am, chx <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I have a really weird bug to report, first of all, this fixed it:
- memcached_return ret = memcached_add(memcached_,
key.c_str(),
key.length(), "1", 1, 7200, 0);
+ memcached_return ret = memcached_add(memcached_,
key.c_str(),
key.length(), "00001", 5, 7200, 0);
These are then increased and decreased by 36 processes... And we
found
that memcached can corrupt data when it handles a lot of data writes
and the data length (in characters) changes while another increase is
coming in.
get 0-2009072009-2-3705-SGFycnkgUG90dGVy
VALUE 0-2009072009-2-3705-SGFycnkgUG90dGVy 0 ??~59 END
that ?? is hex 90, A3 ... so basically garbage (yeah we have funny
key
names). It should be just an integer. And not a big one at that, the
way the application is, it's never more than a two digits integer...
Since we changed the data width to 5 (overkill) things hold up.
Weird,
as I said.
Regards
Karoly "chx" Negyesi
--
Trond Norbye
Web Scale Infrastructure E-mail: [email protected]
SUN Microsystems Phone: +47 73842100
Haakon VII's gt. 7B Fax: +47 73842101
7485 Trondheim, Norway
