Details

    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Resolved (View Workflow)
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Done
    • Affects Version/s: 3.0.9
    • Fix Version/s: 3.0.10, 3.1
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      Hello,

      In this issue an application-level message broadcast to the cluster is being discarded by NAKACK2, on a new joiner.

      I think I understand roughly what's going on - skip to the end for a suggested fix!

      I'll keep all my trace so that I can investigate further details if needed.

      So, let's start with trace from the new joiner (CFS-B-chucklebrothers), showing that:

      • it sets a digest claiming that the sequence numbers for CFS-A-tinkywinky are 26 (26)
      • CFS-A-tinkywinky then sends messages with sequence numbers 26 and 27
      • Only message 27 is passed upwards
      2012-04-18 19:26:49.133 [ForkJoinPool-1-worker-3] DEBUG org.jgroups.protocols.pbcast.NAKACK2 -
      [CFS-B-chucklebrothers setDigest()]
      existing digest:  []
      new digest:       CFS-A-tinkywinky: [26 (26)], CFS-A-chucklebrothers: [0 (0)], CFS-B-tinkywinky: [0 (0)], CFS-B-chucklebrothers: [0 (0)]
      resulting digest: CFS-A-tinkywinky: [26 (26)], CFS-A-chucklebrothers: [0 (0)], CFS-B-tinkywinky: [0 (0)], CFS-B-chucklebrothers: [0 (0)]
      
      2012-04-18 19:26:49.200 [Incoming-2,Clumpy Test Cluster,CFS-B-chucklebrothers] TRACE org.jgroups.protocols.TCP - received [dst: <null>, src: CFS-A-tinkywinky (3 headers), size=39 bytes], headers are SEQUENCER: WRAPPED_BCAST (tag=[CFS-B-chucklebrothers|0]), NAKACK2: [MSG, seqno=26], TCP: [channel_name=Clumpy Test Cluster]
      2012-04-18 19:26:49.200 [Incoming-2,Clumpy Test Cluster,CFS-B-chucklebrothers] TRACE org.jgroups.protocols.TCP - received [dst: <null>, src: CFS-A-tinkywinky (3 headers), size=51 bytes], headers are SEQUENCER: BCAST (tag=[CFS-A-tinkywinky|11]), NAKACK2: [MSG, seqno=27], TCP: [channel_name=Clumpy Test Cluster]
      2012-04-18 19:26:49.200 [Incoming-2,Clumpy Test Cluster,CFS-B-chucklebrothers] TRACE org.jgroups.protocols.pbcast.NAKACK2 - CFS-B-chucklebrothers: received CFS-A-tinkywinky#27
      

      And here's the trace from CFS-A-tinkywinky showing that:

      • the digest that it sent only claimed sequence numbers 25 (25)
      2012-04-18 19:26:49.132 [OOB-1,Clumpy Test Cluster,CFS-A-tinkywinky] TRACE org.jgroups.protocols.TCP - sending msg to CFS-B-chucklebrothers, src=CFS-A-tinkywinky, headers are GMS: GmsHeader[JOIN_RSP]: join_rsp=view: [CFS-A-tinkywinky|3] [CFS-A-tinkywinky, CFS-A-chucklebrothers, CFS-B-tinkywinky, CFS-B-chucklebrothers], digest: CFS-A-tinkywinky: [25 (25)], CFS-A-chucklebrothers: [0 (0)], CFS-B-tinkywinky: [0 (0)], CFS-B-chucklebrothers: [0 (0)], UNICAST2: DATA, seqno=2, conn_id=3, TCP: [channel_name=Clumpy Test Cluster]
      

      By looking at trace from the other members receiving message 26, I can see that this is an application level message.

      I think that the incrementing of the received sequence number is deliberate, per ClientGmsImpl ("see doc/design/varia2.txt for details"). If I understand correctly, it's intended to compensate for the fact that the the digest doesn't include the broadcast VIEW message.

      However, CFS-A-tinkywinky shows this:

      2012-04-18 19:26:49.125 [ViewHandler,Clumpy Test Cluster,CFS-A-tinkywinky] WARN  org.jgroups.protocols.pbcast.GMS - CFS-B-chucklebrothers already present; returning existing view [CFS-A-tinkywinky|3] [CFS-A-tinkywinky, CFS-A-chucklebrothers, CFS-B-tinkywinky, CFS-B-chucklebrothers]
      2012-04-18 19:26:49.126 [ViewHandler,Clumpy Test Cluster,CFS-A-tinkywinky] TRACE org.jgroups.protocols.pbcast.GMS - found no members to add or remove, will not create new view
      

      My thinking is that since the coordinator does not broadcast a VIEW message, it's a mistake for CFS-B-chucklebrothers to have fixed up the digest.

      Possibly the fix is simply to remove the block of code in CoordGmsImpl.handleMembershipChange() for "found no members to add or remove", and send out a view anyway?

      Thanks!

      David

        Gliffy Diagrams

          Attachments

            Issue Links

              Activity

                People

                • Assignee:
                  belaban Bela Ban
                  Reporter:
                  dimbleby David Hotham
                • Votes:
                  0 Vote for this issue
                  Watchers:
                  2 Start watching this issue

                  Dates

                  • Created:
                    Updated:
                    Resolved: