It's not 100% reproducible, to get failed locally I've ran it many times
in a loop (Intellij IDEA feature).
N.B. This test was muted before the fix, so yes, it's could not be a cause.
Thanks!
14.04.2017 17:23, Vladisav Jelisavcic пишет:
Hmm, I cannot reproduce this behavior locally,
my guess i
Hmm, I cannot reproduce this behavior locally,
my guess is interrupt flag is not always cleared properly in
#GridCacheSemaphore.acquire method (but it doesn't have anything to do with
latest fix)
Can you make it reproducible?
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Dmitry Karachentsev <
dkarachent...@gr
Vladislav,
One more thing, This test [1] started failing on semaphore close when
this fix [2] was introduced.
Could you check it please?
[1]
http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=547151&tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_IgniteDataStrucutures#testNameId-979977708202725050
Vladislav,
Yep, you're right. I'll fix it.
Thanks!
14.04.2017 15:18, Vladisav Jelisavcic пишет:
Hi Dmitry,
it looks to me that this test is not valid - after the semaphore 2
fails the permits are redistributed
so the expected number of permits should really be 20 not 10. Do you
agree?
I g
Hi Dmitry,
it looks to me that this test is not valid - after the semaphore 2 fails
the permits are redistributed
so the expected number of permits should really be 20 not 10. Do you agree?
I guess before latest fix this test was (incorrectly) passing because
permits weren't released properly.
W
Hi Vladislav,
It looks like after fix was merged these tests [1] started failing.
Could you please take a look?
[1]
http://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=544238&tab=buildResultsDiv&buildTypeId=IgniteTests_IgniteBinaryObjectsDataStrucutures
Thanks!
-Dmitry.
13.04.2017 16:15, Dmi
Thanks a lot!
12.04.2017 16:35, Vladisav Jelisavcic пишет:
Hi Dmitry,
sure, I made a fix, take a look at the PR and the comments in the ticket.
Best regards,
Vladisav
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Dmitry Karachentsev
mailto:dkarachent...@gridgain.com>> wrote:
Hi Vladislav,
Than
Hi Dmitry,
sure, I made a fix, take a look at the PR and the comments in the ticket.
Best regards,
Vladisav
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Dmitry Karachentsev <
dkarachent...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> Hi Vladislav,
>
> Thanks for your contribution! But it seems doesn't fix related tickets, in
>
Hi Vladislav,
Thanks for your contribution! But it seems doesn't fix related tickets,
in particular [1].
Could you please take a look?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4173
Thanks!
06.04.2017 16:27, Vladisav Jelisavcic пишет:
Hey Dmitry,
sorry for the late reply, I'll try t
Hey Dmitry,
sorry for the late reply, I'll try to bake a pr later during the day.
Best regards,
Vladisav
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Dmitry Karachentsev <
dkarachent...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> Hi Vladislav,
>
> I see you're developing [1] for a while, did you have any chance to fix
> it?
Hi Vladislav,
I see you're developing [1] for a while, did you have any chance to fix
it? If no, is there any estimate?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1977
Thanks!
-Dmitry.
20.03.2017 10:28, Alexey Goncharuk пишет:
I think re-creation should be handled by a user who wil
I think re-creation should be handled by a user who will make sure that
nobody else is currently executing the guarded logic before the
re-creation. This is exactly the same semantics as with
BrokenBarrierException for j.u.c.CyclicBarrier.
2017-03-17 2:39 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic :
> Hi ever
Hi everyone,
I agree with Val, he's got a point; recreating the lock doesn't seem
possible
(at least not the with the transactional cache lock/semaphore we have).
Is this re-create behavior really needed?
Best regards,
Vladisav
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.ku
Guys,
How does recreation of the lock helps? My understanding is that scenario is
the following:
1. Client A creates and acquires a lock, and then starts to execute guarded
logic.
2. Client B tries to acquire the same lock and parks to wait.
3. Before client A unlocks, all affinity nodes for the
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:46 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Which user operation would result in exception? To my knowledge, user may
> > already be holding the lock and not invoking any Ignite APIs, no?
> >
>
> Yes, this is exactly my point.
>
> Imagine that a
>
> Which user operation would result in exception? To my knowledge, user may
> already be holding the lock and not invoking any Ignite APIs, no?
>
Yes, this is exactly my point.
Imagine that a node already holds a lock and another node is waiting for
the lock. If all partition nodes leave the gr
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Alexey Goncharuk wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I was looking at this ticket and have a question related to the lock
> semantics:
>
> Suppose I have a node which has already acquired the lock, and then all
> affinity nodes related to the lock leave topology. In this case, if w
Guys,
I was looking at this ticket and have a question related to the lock
semantics:
Suppose I have a node which has already acquired the lock, and then all
affinity nodes related to the lock leave topology. In this case, if we
automatically re-created the lock, we would end up having two lock o
Vladisav,
I've ran this test with partitioned cache and 1 backup and with replicated
cache (4 nodes in topology). Behavior is the same. I think it is bug. But
the first I wanted make sure that I understand failoverSafe flag correctly.
Thank you for reply. I'll create ticket.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016
Hi,
when failoverSafe == true, semaphore should silently redistribute the
permits acquired on the failing node.
If failoverSafe is set to false, exception is thrown to every node
attempting to acquire.
It seems to me that when the first instance left topology,
no backups were available (this is s
Hi all!
Guys, could somebody explain semantic of failoverSafe flag in
IgniteSemaphore. From my point of view the test below should work but it
fails:
public void testFailoverReleasePermits() throws Exception {
Ignite ignite = grid(0);
IgniteSemaphore sem = ignite.semaphore("s
21 matches
Mail list logo
