I don't seem to need the ld_assume_kernel thing. What are the symptoms when it is required?
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 12:33 PM To: Tomcat Users List Subject: Re: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication Just tried the CVS head and everything works with any CPU going crazy! only if ld_assume_kernel is set to 2.4 One more question for you Filip, is the useDirtyFlag working at all? It seams like even if it's set to true, the whole session gets replicated after each request. :( Jean-Philippe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hurray for Fillip! :) > > I'll get the CVS head for the module today and test this out. > Happy to see that it got fixed that quickly! > > Thanks again and I'll let you know how it goes > > Jean-Philippe > > Filip Hanik wrote: > >> Jean-Philippe and Steve, >> I fixed the bug, and tried replication on RH9. Immediately it didn't >> work. >> The problem is that when RH9 tries to write the ACK back to the NIO >> socket, >> it never reaches the other node. and times out after a long time. >> >> I set LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4 and it started to work >> >> Filip >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Filip Hanik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 6:43 PM >> To: Tomcat Users List >> Subject: RE: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication >> >> >> ok guys, >> good news. The 100% cpu is totally my fault. I messed up on that one. >> I was registering OP_WRITE as an interest >> this is not good :) >> checking in the working code in 15 min, some more regression tests >> Filip >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Filip Hanik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 2:54 PM >> To: Tomcat Users List >> Subject: RE: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication >> >> >> another code change was, that I am now accepting keys for OP_READ and >> OP_WRITE. before it was only OP_READ, >> but for synchronous replication I need both. >> >> this is good info, I just got RH9 installed. will be trying it out >> this and >> next week. >> >> Filip >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:46 AM >> To: Tomcat Users List >> Subject: Re: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication >> >> >> The only changes in the ReplicationListener class is the try catch that >> was added. >> >> the code logic is the same. Weird enough. So it's probably elsewhere >> that something changed in the state of the SelectionKey. >> >> Jean-Philippe Bélanger >> >> Steve Nelson wrote: >> >> >> >>> I was just about to try this actually. I found through googling alot of >>> people >>> having problems with select with 1.4 and NIO with Redhat 9. They were >>> actually >>> experiencing crashes though. >>> >>> To verify your results I just put a Thread.Sleep(1); where you >>> >> >> suggested and >> >> >>> I also see the jump in performance. >>> >>> Something must have changed in ReplicationListener that causes this >>> because >>> the 5.0.16 >>> version doesn't seem to have the problem. I'll see if I can figure >>> it out >>> when I get back to where I can diff the files. >>> >>> -Steve >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 12:25 PM >>> To: Tomcat Users List >>> Subject: Re: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication >>> >>> >>> More content for you Filip. >>> >>> I've checked and followed the code of the listen event in >>> ReplicationListener.java >>> >>> Here's what happening: >>> >>> selector.select(timeout) -> return immediatly with one SelectorKey >>> >> >> available >> >> >>> That key is not Acceptable and not Readable so it immediatly skip those >>> IFs and loops back to the beginning. >>> >>> I've put traces and this is executed once every millisecond hence the >>> 100% load on the server. >>> Just to make sure, I've put a Thread.sleep(10) at the end of the loop >>> and the CPU dropped back to 0% and the replication still worked nicely >>> but probably a little slower since the wait of 10ms. >>> >>> I don't know much about those NIO packages but seams like the >>> select(timeout) method shouldn't return a SelectorKey of that state. >>> with any waiting. >>> >>> Let me know what you can dig from those. >>> >>> Jean-Philippe Bélanger >>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi Filip. >>>> >>>> I did some profiling of 40mins of tomcat with and without a 2nd node >>>> up. here are the results with >>>> -Xrunhprof:cpu=samples,thread=y,file=/u01/portal/java.hprof.txt,depth=10: >>>> >>>> >>>> Those number are cpu=times and not samples since the later one freezes >>>> on my systems. >>>> So that list shows the time spent in each methods. >>>> >>>> Major difference the some call to the sun.nio.ch.PollArrayWrapper >>>> class. I don't know much about those NIOs packages but 819000 call in >>>> 40 mins is a lot. >>>> The Socket Interface was called more than twice with 2 hosts than with >>>> a single one. Which seams normal. >>>> >>>> Maybe this can help. >>>> If you need the complete hprof file I can send them to you. >>>> >>>> 1 host in cluster: >>>> CPU TIME (ms) BEGIN (total = 19701) Thu Jan 8 10:00:59 2004 >>>> rank self accum count trace method >>>> 1 11.48% 11.48% 54 85 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 2 11.46% 22.94% 117 86 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 3 10.95% 33.89% 4115 215 java.net.PlainDatagramSocketImpl.receive >>>> 4 10.93% 44.81% 4114 224 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> 5 10.91% 55.73% 19005 214 sun.nio.ch.PollArrayWrapper.poll0 >>>> 6 7.37% 63.09% 28 495 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 7 7.24% 70.34% 10 576 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 8 4.57% 74.90% 90 716 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> 9 4.48% 79.38% 1 909 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 10 4.48% 83.86% 1 908 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 11 4.48% 88.34% 15 810 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 12 4.47% 92.81% 1 910 java.net.PlainSocketImpl.socketAccept >>>> 13 0.71% 93.52% 2 623 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 14 0.56% 94.08% 2 706 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 15 0.38% 94.46% 2 914 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 16 0.24% 94.70% 775 913 java.lang.String.toCharArray >>>> 17 0.23% 94.93% 3 475 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> 18 0.16% 95.09% 2 472 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 19 0.15% 95.24% 2 595 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> 20 0.15% 95.40% 2 586 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> 21 0.15% 95.55% 2 703 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> 22 0.15% 95.70% 2 476 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> 23 0.15% 95.85% 2 692 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> 24 0.12% 95.97% 218595 385 >>>> java.lang.CharacterDataLatin1.toLowerCase >>>> 25 0.12% 96.09% 218595 408 java.lang.Character.toLowerCase >>>> 26 0.11% 96.20% 218595 433 >>>> java.lang.CharacterDataLatin1.getProperties >>>> 27 0.10% 96.30% 210925 389 java.lang.String.equalsIgnoreCase >>>> 28 0.08% 96.38% 157259 387 java.lang.String.charAt >>>> 29 0.08% 96.46% 1 646 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> 30 0.08% 96.53% 1 634 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> 31 0.08% 96.61% 1 903 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> 32 0.08% 96.69% 1 714 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> 33 0.08% 96.76% 1 811 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> 34 0.08% 96.84% 1 715 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> >>>> 2 hosts: >>>> CPU TIME (ms) BEGIN (total = 37247) Thu Jan 8 11:01:28 2004 >>>> rank self accum count trace method >>>> 1 9.56% 9.56% 52 85 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 2 9.56% 19.12% 29 86 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 3 9.30% 28.43% 3 267 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 4 9.25% 37.68% 6644 224 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> 5 9.23% 46.91% 13116 215 java.net.PlainDatagramSocketImpl.receive >>>> 6 7.67% 54.58% 3 266 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 7 5.90% 60.47% 39 847 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 8 5.76% 66.24% 12 503 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 9 3.90% 70.14% 145 975 java.lang.Thread.sleep >>>> 10 3.90% 74.04% 1 1174 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 11 3.90% 77.94% 1 1173 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 12 3.90% 81.84% 25 973 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 13 3.90% 85.74% 1 1175 java.net.PlainSocketImpl.socketAccept >>>> 14 3.88% 89.62% 819692 214 sun.nio.ch.PollArrayWrapper.poll0 >>>> 15 0.75% 90.37% 2 958 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 16 0.28% 90.65% 2 457 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> 17 0.26% 90.91% 2 1181 java.lang.Object.wait >>>> >>>> Filip Hanik wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I'll try to get an instance going today. Will let you know how it >>>>> goes >>>>> also, try asynchronous replication, does it still go to 100%? >>>>> >>>>> Filip >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:08 PM >>>>> To: 'Tomcat Users List' >>>>> Subject: RE: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Okay, did that got this >>>>> >>>>> BEGIN TO RECEIVE >>>>> SENT:Default 1 >>>>> RECEIVED:Default 1 FROM /10.0.0.110:5555 >>>>> SENT:Default 2 >>>>> BEGIN TO RECEIVE >>>>> RECEIVED:Default 2 FROM /10.0.0.110:5555 >>>>> SENT:Default 3 >>>>> BEGIN TO RECEIVE >>>>> RECEIVED:Default 3 FROM /10.0.0.110:5555 >>>>> SENT:Default 4 >>>>> BEGIN TO RECEIVE >>>>> RECEIVED:Default 4 FROM /10.0.0.110:5555 >>>>> >>>>> *shrug* >>>>> >>>>> BTW It didn't go to 100% CPU ute before I started using the code from >>>>> CVS. >>>>> Of course the Manager would almost always timeout before it would >>>>> recieve >>>>> the message. >>>>> >>>>> Now it gets the message right away, but maxes my machine out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Filip Hanik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:58 PM >>>>> To: Tomcat Users List >>>>> Subject: RE: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 100% cpu can mean that you have a multicast problem, try to run >>>>> >>>>> java -cp tomcat-replication.jar MCaster >>>>> >>>>> download the jar from http://cvs.apache.org/~fhanik/ >>>>> >>>>> Filip >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Steve Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 6:51 AM >>>>> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >>>>> Subject: tomcat 5.0.16 Replication >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was having random problems with clustering when starting up. Mostly >>>>> it had >>>>> to do with Timing out >>>>> when the manager was starting up. I built the CVS version and it >>>>> solved that >>>>> problem. But it has caused >>>>> some serious performance problems. >>>>> >>>>> First a little background. >>>>> >>>>> I have 2 servers, dual 300mhz cpq proliants, both running Redhat - 9, >>>>> Tomcat >>>>> 5.0.16 (with catalina-cluster.jar build from cvs) The multicast >>>>> packets are >>>>> restricted to a crossover link between the servers. There are 3 hosts >>>>> in the >>>>> server.xml, all with clustering set up. They all function just fine. >>>>> >>>>> But.....the cpu's spikes up to 100% if I start up both servers. I >>>>> know this >>>>> didn't happen without the new catalina-cluster.jar. If I shut down 1 >>>>> server >>>>> (doesn't matter which) everything returns to normal. But when both >>>>> are >>>>> running both servers are at 100% CPU. I am trying to profile it now, >>>>> but I >>>>> figured if someone has already experienced this they could save me >>>>> some >>>>> time. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, and there isn't anything relevant in my logs. It's not throwing >>>>> millions >>>>> of errors or something. >>>>> >>>>> -Steve Nelson >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> 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] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jean-Philippe Bélanger >> (514)228-8800 ext 3060 >> 111 Duke >> CGI >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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] >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> > > -- Jean-Philippe Bélanger (514)228-8800 ext 3060 111 Duke CGI --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
