Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
ok, I'll look into this this week. Filip Peter Rossbach wrote: Hey, the problem is arround the keep a live handling code and the auto reconnect at SimpleTcpCluster. One thread can say: I drop the connection and open new one, then start transfer message and wait for ack. Other thread comes and see ups. the connection is not there. ( Arrg missing sychronized). I open a new socket and close the old current use socket. Under Suse Linux 9.1, the first thread wait for keepAlive timeout (60 sec). BAD!!! = Asnyc mode the queue grow very fast. Sometimes all other nodes have the same problem and the complete cluster standing still. Nothing todo wait for ACK I am made very limited testing the effects at sync,pooled mode. I preferred the async modes. I have merge my fix at the 5.5.10 CVS Head Basis. Currently my customer start a weekend load test. I also merge the changes at 5.5.9 Basis. Both version needs testing and documentation, but my time and ressource are limited. Need help, setup clusters and start loading tests. I start to open a bug report for better community discussion and add my fix pack for testing. build-src bin pack I must review my changes and document my szenario. Than Filip can start to review the changes and testing the clustering. Thanks for you help. :-) My customers needs the new 5.5.9 Release. The best thing is, we package a separate patch-cluster-fix and mark 5.5.9 as beta. Peter Filip Hanik - Dev Lists schrieb: Hi Peter, what's up with the cluster code? I will have some time to load test and debug any problems you might have, also, do you have problems on the synced-pooled setting, or on all connectors? Filip - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
I voted it stable but I'm not using clustering support :( On Apr 9, 2005 8:54 PM, Remy Maucherat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yoav Shapira wrote: Hi, Ok, this give me and Filip time for real stability testing and review the 5.5.10 codebase. I also package my fixes to the 5.5.9 codebase for some test user as bug report.. I'll let Yoav decide what he wants to do with all these builds before he gets married (congratulations ;)). I'm very happy to not be the release manager and have to make the tough decisions :) Go Yoav ! Peter, when you have a Bugzilla item and a cluster fix/test package attached to that item, please let us know. At that time I'll send out the vote results, calling 5.5.9 beta and nothing that this issue (and I'll provide a link to bugzilla) is the only thing preventing 5.5.9 from being stable, and that users not needing/using clustering should consider 5.5.9 stable. Good. The vote still does count though: since it is not a regression nor a security issue, if there are three committers who vote stable, then it's stable. Of course, it won't happen, as nobody ever cares about voting ;) Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
Hi, I have add my 5.5.9 clustering fix pack to the following bug report: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34389 Vote for stable 5.5.9 [X] All clustering user can extract the fix pack and all is working well. :-) Peter Yoav Shapira schrieb: Hi, Ok, this give me and Filip time for real stability testing and review the 5.5.10 codebase. I also package my fixes to the 5.5.9 codebase for some test user as bug report.. I'll let Yoav decide what he wants to do with all these builds before he gets married (congratulations ;)). I'm very happy to not be the release manager and have to make the tough decisions :) Go Yoav ! Peter, when you have a Bugzilla item and a cluster fix/test package attached to that item, please let us know. At that time I'll send out the vote results, calling 5.5.9 beta and nothing that this issue (and I'll provide a link to bugzilla) is the only thing preventing 5.5.9 from being stable, and that users not needing/using clustering should consider 5.5.9 stable. Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering Cambridge, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
Peter Rossbach wrote: I have add my 5.5.9 clustering fix pack to the following bug report: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34389 Wow, it's great you could come up with a patch for 5.5.9 so quickly :) Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
Thanks, and I hope Filip has time to review and test it. Peter. PS: I am now start to port the fix to my changed 5.5.10 code. Remy Maucherat schrieb: Peter Rossbach wrote: I have add my 5.5.9 clustering fix pack to the following bug report: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34389 Wow, it's great you could come up with a patch for 5.5.9 so quickly :) Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
Hey, the problem is arround the keep a live handling code and the auto reconnect at SimpleTcpCluster. One thread can say: I drop the connection and open new one, then start transfer message and wait for ack. Other thread comes and see ups. the connection is not there. ( Arrg missing sychronized). I open a new socket and close the old current use socket. Under Suse Linux 9.1, the first thread wait for keepAlive timeout (60 sec). BAD!!! = Asnyc mode the queue grow very fast. Sometimes all other nodes have the same problem and the complete cluster standing still. Nothing todo wait for ACK I am made very limited testing the effects at sync,pooled mode. I preferred the async modes. I have merge my fix at the 5.5.10 CVS Head Basis. Currently my customer start a weekend load test. I also merge the changes at 5.5.9 Basis. Both version needs testing and documentation, but my time and ressource are limited. Need help, setup clusters and start loading tests. I start to open a bug report for better community discussion and add my fix pack for testing. build-src bin pack I must review my changes and document my szenario. Than Filip can start to review the changes and testing the clustering. Thanks for you help. :-) My customers needs the new 5.5.9 Release. The best thing is, we package a separate patch-cluster-fix and mark 5.5.9 as beta. Peter Filip Hanik - Dev Lists schrieb: Hi Peter, what's up with the cluster code? I will have some time to load test and debug any problems you might have, also, do you have problems on the synced-pooled setting, or on all connectors? Filip - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
Congratulation, too! Peter Yoav Shapira schrieb: Hi, The problem is that clustering only patches in HEAD may pick up incompatible changes, like the Session.getId patch. We also shouldn't do a new 5.5.10 tag based on HEAD, as it would pick up the risky stuff. Maybe one solution would be to do a new 5.5.9 build, and reverting clustering (aka, everything in the cluster folder) to the 5.5.8 tag. Would that work out well enough ? I think that's the best approach. We can call it 5.5.9-beta when released, and have a stability vote right afterwards. I'll be incommunicado from the 14th through the 20th or so: I'm getting married on the 17th ;) Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering Cambridge, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
Peter Rossbach wrote: My customers needs the new 5.5.9 Release. The best thing is, we package a separate patch-cluster-fix and mark 5.5.9 as beta. Given the state of HEAD, and given some the 5.5.7 issues, I would like 5.5.9 to be stable. This means we would need a way to fix 5.5.9 without new major patches (which may work well for your customer, but this is still very limited testing) ;) Are you certain reverting to 5.5.8 clustering is not possible (meaning that it contains the same problems - or worse - as 5.5.9) ? If so, I think we need to forget about clustering stability for now, and mention that it is experimental in this build. Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
I thing the instability is also included at 5.5.7 clustering. Are you certain reverting to 5.5.8 clustering is not possible (meaning that it contains the same problems - or worse - as 5.5.9) ? If so, I think we need to forget about clustering stability for now, and mention that it is experimental in this build. Ok, this give me and Filip time for real stability testing and review the 5.5.10 codebase. I also package my fixes to the 5.5.9 codebase for some test user as bug report.. Peter Remy Maucherat schrieb: Peter Rossbach wrote: My customers needs the new 5.5.9 Release. The best thing is, we package a separate patch-cluster-fix and mark 5.5.9 as beta. Given the state of HEAD, and given some the 5.5.7 issues, I would like 5.5.9 to be stable. This means we would need a way to fix 5.5.9 without new major patches (which may work well for your customer, but this is still very limited testing) ;) Are you certain reverting to 5.5.8 clustering is not possible (meaning that it contains the same problems - or worse - as 5.5.9) ? If so, I think we need to forget about clustering stability for now, and mention that it is experimental in this build. Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
Peter Rossbach wrote: I thing the instability is also included at 5.5.7 clustering. :( So it's safe to assume all 5.5 builds have some kind of issues with the clustering then, probably due to lack of actual production testing. Are you certain reverting to 5.5.8 clustering is not possible (meaning that it contains the same problems - or worse - as 5.5.9) ? If so, I think we need to forget about clustering stability for now, and mention that it is experimental in this build. Ok, this give me and Filip time for real stability testing and review the 5.5.10 codebase. I also package my fixes to the 5.5.9 codebase for some test user as bug report.. I'll let Yoav decide what he wants to do with all these builds before he gets married (congratulations ;)). I'm very happy to not be the release manager and have to make the tough decisions :) Go Yoav ! Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
Hi, Ok, this give me and Filip time for real stability testing and review the 5.5.10 codebase. I also package my fixes to the 5.5.9 codebase for some test user as bug report.. I'll let Yoav decide what he wants to do with all these builds before he gets married (congratulations ;)). I'm very happy to not be the release manager and have to make the tough decisions :) Go Yoav ! Peter, when you have a Bugzilla item and a cluster fix/test package attached to that item, please let us know. At that time I'll send out the vote results, calling 5.5.9 beta and nothing that this issue (and I'll provide a link to bugzilla) is the only thing preventing 5.5.9 from being stable, and that users not needing/using clustering should consider 5.5.9 stable. Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering Cambridge, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
Yoav Shapira wrote: Hi, Ok, this give me and Filip time for real stability testing and review the 5.5.10 codebase. I also package my fixes to the 5.5.9 codebase for some test user as bug report.. I'll let Yoav decide what he wants to do with all these builds before he gets married (congratulations ;)). I'm very happy to not be the release manager and have to make the tough decisions :) Go Yoav ! Peter, when you have a Bugzilla item and a cluster fix/test package attached to that item, please let us know. At that time I'll send out the vote results, calling 5.5.9 beta and nothing that this issue (and I'll provide a link to bugzilla) is the only thing preventing 5.5.9 from being stable, and that users not needing/using clustering should consider 5.5.9 stable. Good. The vote still does count though: since it is not a regression nor a security issue, if there are three committers who vote stable, then it's stable. Of course, it won't happen, as nobody ever cares about voting ;) Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
Hey, [X] Stable -- good build (Normal Tomcat) [X] unstable and buggy cluster code, Argg! The normal Tomcat features are very stable on my tests. But my cluster code refactorings has drop the clustering. I have test the cluster under load this week and find some very bad bugs :-( - Complete cluster hang sometimes - In some situation the async mode can't dequeue I have build some quick fixes and can build a patch for some 5.5.9 cluster classes (Monday evening). Vote for a server classes fix pack or package the catalina-cluster.jar again. Sorry, Peter Yoav Shapira schrieb: Hi, Tomcat v5.5.9 has been out for more than a week now, so hopefully we have had time to test/use it. We're still waiting for the TCK results, but let's hear your opinion: [ ] Stable -- good build [ ] Beta -- minor bad stuff: what is it? [ ] Alpha -- something serious is wrong: what is it? The vote will run for about 72 hours as usual. Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering Cambridge, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
Hi Peter, what's up with the cluster code? I will have some time to load test and debug any problems you might have, also, do you have problems on the synced-pooled setting, or on all connectors? Filip Peter Rossbach wrote: Hey, [X] Stable -- good build (Normal Tomcat) [X] unstable and buggy cluster code, Argg! The normal Tomcat features are very stable on my tests. But my cluster code refactorings has drop the clustering. I have test the cluster under load this week and find some very bad bugs :-( - Complete cluster hang sometimes - In some situation the async mode can't dequeue I have build some quick fixes and can build a patch for some 5.5.9 cluster classes (Monday evening). Vote for a server classes fix pack or package the catalina-cluster.jar again. Sorry, Peter Yoav Shapira schrieb: Hi, Tomcat v5.5.9 has been out for more than a week now, so hopefully we have had time to test/use it. We're still waiting for the TCK results, but let's hear your opinion: [ ] Stable -- good build [ ] Beta -- minor bad stuff: what is it? [ ] Alpha -- something serious is wrong: what is it? The vote will run for about 72 hours as usual. Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering Cambridge, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
Hi, The problem is that clustering only patches in HEAD may pick up incompatible changes, like the Session.getId patch. We also shouldn't do a new 5.5.10 tag based on HEAD, as it would pick up the risky stuff. Maybe one solution would be to do a new 5.5.9 build, and reverting clustering (aka, everything in the cluster folder) to the 5.5.8 tag. Would that work out well enough ? I think that's the best approach. We can call it 5.5.9-beta when released, and have a stability vote right afterwards. I'll be incommunicado from the 14th through the 20th or so: I'm getting married on the 17th ;) Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering Cambridge, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
Congratulation ! I'll be incommunicado from the 14th through the 20th or so: I'm getting married on the 17th ;) Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering Cambridge, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
Yoav Shapira wrote: [X] Stable -- good build The build looks good to me. I would say it passes the TCK test, as Jan said the TCK status was still ok after making the nearly last minute getId change (which got reverted). Of course, I could be wrong. Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
Hi, Tomcat v5.5.9 has been out for more than a week now, so hopefully we have had time to test/use it. We're still waiting for the TCK results, but let's hear your opinion: [ ] Stable -- good build [ ] Beta -- minor bad stuff: what is it? [ ] Alpha -- something serious is wrong: what is it? The vote will run for about 72 hours as usual. Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering Cambridge, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] 5.5.9 Stability
From what I could see in my first devel site (the first not using a Tomcat 3.3.2), it seems stable. On Apr 6, 2005 1:25 PM, Yoav Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Tomcat v5.5.9 has been out for more than a week now, so hopefully we have had time to test/use it. We're still waiting for the TCK results, but let's hear your opinion: [ ] Stable -- good build [ ] Beta -- minor bad stuff: what is it? [ ] Alpha -- something serious is wrong: what is it? The vote will run for about 72 hours as usual. Yoav Shapira System Design and Management Fellow MIT Sloan School of Management / School of Engineering Cambridge, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
