[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-822?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12905528#action_12905528 ]
Vishal K commented on ZOOKEEPER-822: ------------------------------------ Hi Flavio, I was planning to send out a mail explaining the problems in the FLE implementation that I have found so far. For now, I will put the info here. We can create new JIRAs if needed. I am waiting to hear back from our legal department to resolve copyright issues so that I can share my fixes as well. 1. Blocking connects and accepts: You are right, when the node is down TCP timeouts rule. a) The first problem is in manager.toSend(). This invokes connectOne(), which does a blocking connect. While testing, I changed the code so that connectOne() starts a new thread called AsyncConnct(). AsyncConnect.run() does a socketChannel.connect(). After starting AsyncConnect, connectOne starts a timer. connectOne continues with normal operations if the connection is established before the timer expires, otherwise, when the timer expires it interrupts AsyncConnect() thread and returns. In this way, I can have an upper bound on the amount of time we need to wait for connect to succeed. Of course, this was a quick fix for my testing. Ideally, we should use Selector to do non-blocking connects/accepts. I am planning to do that later once we at least have a quick fix for the problem and consensus from others for the real fix (this problem is big blocker for us). Note that it is OK to do blocking IO in SenderWorker and RecvWorker threads since they block IO to the respective pe! er. b) The blocking IO problem is not just restricted to connectOne(), but also in receiveConnection(). The Listener thread calls receiveConnection() for each incoming connection request. receiveConnection does blocking IO to get peer's info (s.read(msgBuffer)). Worse, it invokes connectOne() back to the peer that had sent the connection request. All of this is happening from the Listener. In short, if a peer fails after initiating a connection, the Listener thread won't be able to accept connections from other peers, because it would be stuck in read() or connetOne(). Also the code has an inherent cycle. initiateConnection() and receiveConnection() will have to be very carefully synchronized otherwise, we could run into deadlocks. This code is going to be difficult to maintain/modify. 2. Buggy senderWorkerMap handling: The code that manages senderWorkerMap is very buggy. It is causing multiple election rounds. While debugging I found that sometimes after FLE a node will have its sendWorkerMap empty even if it has SenderWorker and RecvWorker threads for each peer. a) The receiveConnection() method calls the finish() method, which removes an entry from the map. Additionally, the thread itself calls finish() which could remove the newly added entry from the map. In short, receiveConnection is causing the exact condition that you mentioned above. b) Apart from the bug in finish(), receiveConnection is making an entry in senderWorkerMap at the wrong place. Here's the buggy code: SendWorker vsw = senderWorkerMap.get(sid); senderWorkerMap.put(sid, sw); if(vsw != null) vsw.finish(); It makes an entry for the new thread and then calls finish, which causes the new thread to be removed from the Map. The old thread will also get terminated since finish() will interrupt the thread. 3. Race condition in receiveConnection and initiateConnection: *In theory*, two peers can keep disconnecting each other's connection. Example: T0: Peer 0 initiates a connection (request 1) T1: Peer 1 receives connection from peer 0 T2: Peer 1 calls receiveConnection() T2: Peer 0 closes connection to Peer 1 because its ID is lower. T3: Peer 0 re-initiates connection to Peer 1 from manger.toSend() (request 2) T3: Peer 1 terminates older connection to peer 0 T4: Peer 1 calls connectOne() which starts new sendWorker threads for peer 0 T5: Peer 1 kills connection created in T3 because it receives another (request 2) connect request from 0 The problem here is that while Peer 0 is accepting a connection from Peer 1 it can also be initiating a connection to Peer 1. So if they hit the right frequencies they could sit in a connect/disconnect loop and cause multiple rounds of leader election. I think the cause here is again blocking connects()/accepts(). A peer starts to take action (to kill existing threads and start new threads) as soon as a connection is established at the *TCP level*. That is, it does not give us any control to synchronized connect and accepts. We could use non-blocking connects and accepts. This will allow us to a) tell a thread to not initiate a connection because the listener is about to accept a connection from the remote peer (use isAcceptable() and isConnectable()methods of SelectionKey) and b) prevent a thread from initiating multiple connect request to the same peer. It will simplify synchronization. Any thoughts? -Vishal > Leader election taking a long time to complete > ----------------------------------------------- > > Key: ZOOKEEPER-822 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-822 > Project: Zookeeper > Issue Type: Bug > Components: quorum > Affects Versions: 3.3.0 > Reporter: Vishal K > Priority: Blocker > Attachments: 822.tar.gz, rhel.tar.gz, test_zookeeper_1.log, > test_zookeeper_2.log, zk_leader_election.tar.gz, zookeeper-3.4.0.tar.gz > > > Created a 3 node cluster. > 1 Fail the ZK leader > 2. Let leader election finish. Restart the leader and let it join the > 3. Repeat > After a few rounds leader election takes anywhere 25- 60 seconds to finish. > Note- we didn't have any ZK clients and no new znodes were created. > zoo.cfg is shown below: > #Mon Jul 19 12:15:10 UTC 2010 > server.1=192.168.4.12\:2888\:3888 > server.0=192.168.4.11\:2888\:3888 > clientPort=2181 > dataDir=/var/zookeeper > syncLimit=2 > server.2=192.168.4.13\:2888\:3888 > initLimit=5 > tickTime=2000 > I have attached logs from two nodes that took a long time to form the cluster > after failing the leader. The leader was down anyways so logs from that node > shouldn't matter. > Look for "START HERE". Logs after that point should be of our interest. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.