Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Locked
12
12
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
 
|
Cross-posting to the dev-list.
Hi Mario, Thank you for source code. I was able to reproduce the issue and deduced it to simpler example when two nodes start in a single JVM and one of the holds key lock. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2671 Igniters, I think someone with experience with cache/preload should throw a glance at this ticket. Looks pretty nasty to me. Essentially, new node cannot join topology when a single cache key lock is held. Vladimir. On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:33 PM, nyname00 <[hidden email]> wrote: > Yakov, > > please see the code below. Simply start one node (in my case I started it > directly from eclipse using 1.8u45) and wait for a few cycles, then start > up > the second node. You should see one more "sem created" message and then ... > silence. If you kill the first node, the code processes normal again - but > not when you kill the second one. > > Also note that on the second node no "Topology snapshot" message appears > which, I guess, is not a good sign. > > I'm still testing, but if you replace the "sched" map-lock with a > semaphore, > everything seems to work ... until you kill one of the nodes. Then an > exception is thrown every time the worker tries to get a new semaphore. > > Thanks for investigating, > Mario > > > public static void main(String[] args) { > Ignite ignite = Ignition.start(new IgniteConfiguration()); > > Lock lock = ignite > .getOrCreateCache( > new CacheConfiguration<String, > Boolean>("sched").setAtomicityMode(TRANSACTIONAL)) > .lock("sched-lock"); > > if (lock.tryLock()) { > try { > System.out.println("pre start sched"); > > ScheduledExecutorService es = > Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor(); > ScheduledFuture<?> f = es.scheduleAtFixedRate(new > Worker(ignite), 0, 2000, > TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS); > > System.out.println("post start sched"); > try { > f.get(); > } catch (Exception e) { > e.printStackTrace(); > } finally { > es.shutdownNow(); > } > } finally { > lock.unlock(); > } > } > } > > private static class Worker implements Runnable { > private final Ignite ignite; > > public Worker(Ignite ignite) { > this.ignite = ignite; > } > > @Override > public void run() { > IgniteSemaphore sem = ignite.semaphore("sem-worker-1", 1, > true, true); > > System.out.println("sem created"); > if (sem.tryAcquire()) { > try { > System.out.println("sem aquired"); > } finally { > sem.release(); > System.out.println("sem released"); > } > } else { > System.out.println("sem not aquired"); > } > } > } > > > yakov wrote > > Hi Mario! > > > > Can you please share the code somehow? Reproducible example will be very > > helpful. > > > > --Yakov > > > > 2016-02-16 16:57 GMT+03:00 nyname00 < > > > mario.stark@ > > > >: > > > >> Hi Igniters, > >> > >> I'm getting some strange behavior when I try to call > >> IgniteSemaphore#tryAquire() while holding a lock on a cache element - > the > >> method seems block forever. > >> > >> Here's the details: > >> - create a cache (default, transactional) and get a lock using > >> Lock#tryLock() > >> - start a Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor() and schedule a > >> worker to run every n seconds > >> - in the worker, get a semaphore and call IgniteSemaphore#tryAcquire() > >> - do some work and call IgniteSemaphore#release() > >> (except for the cache/lock and semaphore no Ignite API calls are made) > >> > >> The whole thing works for a single node, but as soon as I start up an > new > >> node (with the same code) the IgniteSemaphore#tryAcquire() call starts > >> blocking. > >> > >> Is this this a known limitation/issue or am I doing something wrong > here? > >> > >> Thanks in advance, > >> Mario > >> > >> ps: when I replace the cache-lock with an other semaphore, it works > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > >> > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Semaphore-blocking-on-tryAcquire-while-holding-a-cache-lock-tp3031.html > >> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Semaphore-blocking-on-tryAcquire-while-holding-a-cache-lock-tp3031p3034.html > Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > |
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
|
|
Folks,
The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the same semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be changed while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is held. The restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue can be fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore currently works. As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my first guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led to the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please re-test your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures? From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm done with IGNITE-2610. |
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
|
|
Hi,
i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next release. Best regards, Vladisav On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < [hidden email]> wrote: > Folks, > > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the same > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be changed > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is held. The > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue can be > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore currently > works. > > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my first > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led to > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please re-test > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures? > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm done > with IGNITE-2610. > |
|
|
Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to
myself. --Yakov 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: > Hi, > > i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, > i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next > release. > > Best regards, > Vladisav > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the same > > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be changed > > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is held. > The > > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue can > be > > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore currently > > works. > > > > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my > first > > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led to > > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please re-test > > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures? > > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm done > > with IGNITE-2610. > > > |
|
|
Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties. Can you please respond in ticket? --Yakov 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to > myself. > > --Yakov > > 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: > >> Hi, >> >> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, >> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next >> release. >> >> Best regards, >> Vladisav >> >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > Folks, >> > >> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the same >> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be changed >> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is held. >> The >> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue can >> be >> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore currently >> > works. >> > >> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my >> first >> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led to >> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please re-test >> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures? >> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm >> done >> > with IGNITE-2610. >> > >> > > |
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
|
|
Yakov,
I've answered. Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same things. On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote: > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. > > Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties. > Can you please respond in ticket? > > > --Yakov > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to >> myself. >> >> --Yakov >> >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next >>> release. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Vladisav >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> > Folks, >>> > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the same >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be changed >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is held. >>> The >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue >>> can be >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore currently >>> > works. >>> > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my >>> first >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led >>> to >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please >>> re-test >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures? >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm >>> done >>> > with IGNITE-2610. >>> > >>> >> >> > |
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
|
+1 on FAQ
Can we just create a page, and start populating it? D. On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> wrote: > Yakov, > > I've answered. > Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same > things. > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), >> >> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. >> >> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties. >> Can you please respond in ticket? >> >> >> --Yakov >> >> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: >> >>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to >>> myself. >>> >>> --Yakov >>> >>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, >>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next >>>> release. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Vladisav >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < >>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Folks, >>>> > >>>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the >>>> same >>>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be >>>> changed >>>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is >>>> held. The >>>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue >>>> can be >>>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore >>>> currently >>>> > works. >>>> > >>>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my >>>> first >>>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led >>>> to >>>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please >>>> re-test >>>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures? >>>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm >>>> done >>>> > with IGNITE-2610. >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> > |
|
|
We already have a basic FAQ page which I am populating:
http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq <http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq> Please feel free to add to it. Not sure if we want to migrate this to the wiki? Christos > On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote: > > +1 on FAQ > > Can we just create a page, and start populating it? > > D. > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Yakov, >> >> I've answered. >> Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same >> things. >> >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), >>> >>> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. >>> >>> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties. >>> Can you please respond in ticket? >>> >>> >>> --Yakov >>> >>> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: >>> >>>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to >>>> myself. >>>> >>>> --Yakov >>>> >>>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, >>>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next >>>>> release. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Vladisav >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the >>>>> same >>>>>> semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be >>>>> changed >>>>>> while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is >>>>> held. The >>>>>> restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue >>>>> can be >>>>>> fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore >>>>> currently >>>>>> works. >>>>>> >>>>>> As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my >>>>> first >>>>>> guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led >>>>> to >>>>>> the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please >>>>> re-test >>>>>> your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures? >>>>>> From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm >>>>> done >>>>>> with IGNITE-2610. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> |
|
|
Ah, I realise now that this FAQ you are talking about is probably more of a dev one where as the one I’ve created is more product focused.
Christos > On 11 Mar 2016, at 18:20, Christos Erotocritou <[hidden email]> wrote: > > We already have a basic FAQ page which I am populating: > http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq <http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq> > > Please feel free to add to it. > > Not sure if we want to migrate this to the wiki? > > Christos > >> On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> >> +1 on FAQ >> >> Can we just create a page, and start populating it? >> >> D. >> >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >> wrote: >> >>> Yakov, >>> >>> I've answered. >>> Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same >>> things. >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), >>>> >>>> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. >>>> >>>> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties. >>>> Can you please respond in ticket? >>>> >>>> >>>> --Yakov >>>> >>>> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>: >>>> >>>>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to >>>>> myself. >>>>> >>>>> --Yakov >>>>> >>>>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, >>>>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next >>>>>> release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Vladisav >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < >>>>>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the >>>>>> same >>>>>>> semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be >>>>>> changed >>>>>>> while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is >>>>>> held. The >>>>>>> restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue >>>>>> can be >>>>>>> fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore >>>>>> currently >>>>>>> works. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my >>>>>> first >>>>>>> guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led >>>>>> to >>>>>>> the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please >>>>>> re-test >>>>>>> your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures? >>>>>>> From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm >>>>>> done >>>>>>> with IGNITE-2610. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > |
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
|
|
In reply to this post by christos
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Christos Erotocritou <
[hidden email]> wrote: > We already have a basic FAQ page which I am populating: > http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq < > http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq> > > Please feel free to add to it. > Thanks Christos! Here is the correct link (your link is just an alias): https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/faq I think we should add a TOC up top as well, whenever you are done. > Not sure if we want to migrate this to the wiki? > I don’t think we need to. > > Christos > > > On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > > +1 on FAQ > > > > Can we just create a page, and start populating it? > > > > D. > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov < > [hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > >> Yakov, > >> > >> I've answered. > >> Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same > >> things. > >> > >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), > >>> > >>> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. > >>> > >>> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties. > >>> Can you please respond in ticket? > >>> > >>> > >>> --Yakov > >>> > >>> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > >>> > >>>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket > to > >>>> myself. > >>>> > >>>> --Yakov > >>>> > >>>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, > >>>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next > >>>>> release. > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> Vladisav > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Folks, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the > >>>>> same > >>>>>> semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be > >>>>> changed > >>>>>> while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is > >>>>> held. The > >>>>>> restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue > >>>>> can be > >>>>>> fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore > >>>>> currently > >>>>>> works. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, > my > >>>>> first > >>>>>> guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which > led > >>>>> to > >>>>>> the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please > >>>>> re-test > >>>>>> your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data > structures? > >>>>>> From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm > >>>>> done > >>>>>> with IGNITE-2610. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > |
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
|
|
I've populated FAQ
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/FAQ On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Christos Erotocritou < > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > We already have a basic FAQ page which I am populating: > > http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq < > > http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq> > > > > Please feel free to add to it. > > > > Thanks Christos! Here is the correct link (your link is just an alias): > https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/faq > > I think we should add a TOC up top as well, whenever you are done. > > > > Not sure if we want to migrate this to the wiki? > > > > I don’t think we need to. > > > > > > Christos > > > > > On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > > > > +1 on FAQ > > > > > > Can we just create a page, and start populating it? > > > > > > D. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov < > > [hidden email]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Yakov, > > >> > > >> I've answered. > > >> Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish > same > > >> things. > > >> > > >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), > > >>> > > >>> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. > > >>> > > >>> Anton V. there is a question regarding > optimized-classnames.properties. > > >>> Can you please respond in ticket? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> --Yakov > > >>> > > >>> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > > >>> > > >>>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket > > to > > >>>> myself. > > >>>> > > >>>> --Yakov > > >>>> > > >>>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email] > >: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, > > >>>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next > > >>>>> release. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Best regards, > > >>>>> Vladisav > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > > >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Folks, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the > > >>>>> same > > >>>>>> semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be > > >>>>> changed > > >>>>>> while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is > > >>>>> held. The > > >>>>>> restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() > issue > > >>>>> can be > > >>>>>> fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore > > >>>>> currently > > >>>>>> works. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, > > my > > >>>>> first > > >>>>>> guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which > > led > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>> the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please > > >>>>> re-test > > >>>>>> your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data > > structures? > > >>>>>> From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when > I'm > > >>>>> done > > >>>>>> with IGNITE-2610. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > |
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
|
|
In reply to this post by yzhdanov
Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
Thanks! -- Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D *GridGain Systems* www.gridgain.com 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. > > Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties. > Can you please respond in ticket? > > > --Yakov > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to >> myself. >> >> --Yakov >> >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next >>> release. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Vladisav >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> > Folks, >>> > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the same >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be changed >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is held. >>> The >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue >>> can be >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore currently >>> > works. >>> > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my >>> first >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led >>> to >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please >>> re-test >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures? >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm >>> done >>> > with IGNITE-2610. >>> > >>> >> >> > |
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
|
|
Hi Yakov,
yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now, please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed. Once ignite-642 is merged into master, I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6. release). Best regrads, Vladisav On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote: > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments? > > Thanks! > -- > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D > *GridGain Systems* > www.gridgain.com > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), > > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. > > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties. > > Can you please respond in ticket? > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to > >> myself. > >> > >> --Yakov > >> > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next > >>> release. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Vladisav > >>> > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > >>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > Folks, > >>> > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the > same > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be > changed > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is > held. > >>> The > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue > >>> can be > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore > currently > >>> > works. > >>> > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my > >>> first > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led > >>> to > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please > >>> re-test > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data > structures? > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm > >>> done > >>> > with IGNITE-2610. > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > > |
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
|
|
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>
wrote: > Hi Yakov, > > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now, > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed. > > Once ignite-642 is merged into master, > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6. > release). > This would be awesome :) > > Best regrads, > Vladisav > > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments? > > > > Thanks! > > -- > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D > > *GridGain Systems* > > www.gridgain.com > > > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > > > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), > > > > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. > > > > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties. > > > Can you please respond in ticket? > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > > > > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket > to > > >> myself. > > >> > > >> --Yakov > > >> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: > > >> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next > > >>> release. > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> Vladisav > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > > >>> [hidden email]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > Folks, > > >>> > > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the > > same > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be > > changed > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is > > held. > > >>> The > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue > > >>> can be > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore > > currently > > >>> > works. > > >>> > > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, > my > > >>> first > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which > led > > >>> to > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please > > >>> re-test > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data > > structures? > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when > I'm > > >>> done > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610. > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Vladisav Jelisavcic
Vlad, can you please check my comments again?
--Yakov 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: > Hi Yakov, > > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now, > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed. > > Once ignite-642 is merged into master, > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6. > release). > > Best regrads, > Vladisav > > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments? > > > > Thanks! > > -- > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D > > *GridGain Systems* > > www.gridgain.com > > > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > > > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), > > > > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. > > > > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties. > > > Can you please respond in ticket? > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > > > > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket > to > > >> myself. > > >> > > >> --Yakov > > >> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: > > >> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next > > >>> release. > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> Vladisav > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > > >>> [hidden email]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > Folks, > > >>> > > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the > > same > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be > > changed > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is > > held. > > >>> The > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue > > >>> can be > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore > > currently > > >>> > works. > > >>> > > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, > my > > >>> first > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which > led > > >>> to > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please > > >>> re-test > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data > > structures? > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when > I'm > > >>> done > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610. > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > |
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
|
|
Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again?
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> wrote: > Vlad, can you please check my comments again? > > --Yakov > > 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: > > > Hi Yakov, > > > > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now, > > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed. > > > > Once ignite-642 is merged into master, > > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6. > > release). > > > > Best regrads, > > Vladisav > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments? > > > > > > Thanks! > > > -- > > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D > > > *GridGain Systems* > > > www.gridgain.com > > > > > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > > > > > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), > > > > > > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. > > > > > > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding > optimized-classnames.properties. > > > > Can you please respond in ticket? > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > > > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > > > > > > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket > > to > > > >> myself. > > > >> > > > >> --Yakov > > > >> > > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email] > >: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi, > > > >>> > > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, > > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next > > > >>> release. > > > >>> > > > >>> Best regards, > > > >>> Vladisav > > > >>> > > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > > > >>> [hidden email]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > Folks, > > > >>> > > > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has > the > > > same > > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be > > > changed > > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is > > > held. > > > >>> The > > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() > issue > > > >>> can be > > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore > > > currently > > > >>> > works. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" > message, > > my > > > >>> first > > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which > > led > > > >>> to > > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please > > > >>> re-test > > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data > > > structures? > > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when > > I'm > > > >>> done > > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > |
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
|
|
Yakov,
sorry for the long delay, I added another commit to the PR, can you please do the review again? Thanks! Vladisav On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]> wrote: > Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again? > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Vlad, can you please check my comments again? >> >> --Yakov >> >> 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: >> >> > Hi Yakov, >> > >> > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now, >> > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed. >> > >> > Once ignite-642 is merged into master, >> > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6. >> > release). >> > >> > Best regrads, >> > Vladisav >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments? >> > > >> > > Thanks! >> > > -- >> > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D >> > > *GridGain Systems* >> > > www.gridgain.com >> > > >> > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: >> > > >> > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), >> > > > >> > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. >> > > > >> > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding >> optimized-classnames.properties. >> > > > Can you please respond in ticket? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > --Yakov >> > > > >> > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: >> > > > >> > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning >> ticket >> > to >> > > >> myself. >> > > >> >> > > >> --Yakov >> > > >> >> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic < >> [hidden email]>: >> > > >> >> > > >>> Hi, >> > > >>> >> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, >> > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the >> next >> > > >>> release. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Best regards, >> > > >>> Vladisav >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < >> > > >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> > Folks, >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has >> the >> > > same >> > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be >> > > changed >> > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is >> > > held. >> > > >>> The >> > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() >> issue >> > > >>> can be >> > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore >> > > currently >> > > >>> > works. >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" >> message, >> > my >> > > >>> first >> > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups >> which >> > led >> > > >>> to >> > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please >> > > >>> re-test >> > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data >> > > structures? >> > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when >> > I'm >> > > >>> done >> > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610. >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > > |
|
|
Very good news, Vlad! I will take a look over weekend or on Monday.
--Yakov 2016-04-08 12:58 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: > Yakov, > > sorry for the long delay, I added another commit to the PR, > can you please do the review again? > > Thanks! > Vladisav > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email] > > > wrote: > > > Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again? > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > >> Vlad, can you please check my comments again? > >> > >> --Yakov > >> > >> 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: > >> > >> > Hi Yakov, > >> > > >> > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now, > >> > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed. > >> > > >> > Once ignite-642 is merged into master, > >> > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6. > >> > release). > >> > > >> > Best regrads, > >> > Vladisav > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov < > [hidden email]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments? > >> > > > >> > > Thanks! > >> > > -- > >> > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D > >> > > *GridGain Systems* > >> > > www.gridgain.com > >> > > > >> > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > >> > > > >> > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), > >> > > > > >> > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. > >> > > > > >> > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding > >> optimized-classnames.properties. > >> > > > Can you please respond in ticket? > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > --Yakov > >> > > > > >> > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > >> > > > > >> > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning > >> ticket > >> > to > >> > > >> myself. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> --Yakov > >> > > >> > >> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic < > >> [hidden email]>: > >> > > >> > >> > > >>> Hi, > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, > >> > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the > >> next > >> > > >>> release. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Best regards, > >> > > >>> Vladisav > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > >> > > >>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > Folks, > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has > >> the > >> > > same > >> > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot > be > >> > > changed > >> > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock > is > >> > > held. > >> > > >>> The > >> > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() > >> issue > >> > > >>> can be > >> > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore > >> > > currently > >> > > >>> > works. > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" > >> message, > >> > my > >> > > >>> first > >> > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups > >> which > >> > led > >> > > >>> to > >> > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you > please > >> > > >>> re-test > >> > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data > >> > > structures? > >> > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue > when > >> > I'm > >> > > >>> done > >> > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610. > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > |
|
|
Vlad, I did not have time today. Will review tomorrow.
--Yakov 2016-04-08 13:51 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > Very good news, Vlad! I will take a look over weekend or on Monday. > > --Yakov > > 2016-04-08 12:58 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: > >> Yakov, >> >> sorry for the long delay, I added another commit to the PR, >> can you please do the review again? >> >> Thanks! >> Vladisav >> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic < >> [hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >> > Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again? >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Vlad, can you please check my comments again? >> >> >> >> --Yakov >> >> >> >> 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: >> >> >> >> > Hi Yakov, >> >> > >> >> > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now, >> >> > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is >> needed. >> >> > >> >> > Once ignite-642 is merged into master, >> >> > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6. >> >> > release). >> >> > >> >> > Best regrads, >> >> > Vladisav >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov < >> [hidden email]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments? >> >> > > >> >> > > Thanks! >> >> > > -- >> >> > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D >> >> > > *GridGain Systems* >> >> > > www.gridgain.com >> >> > > >> >> > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: >> >> > > >> >> > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding >> >> optimized-classnames.properties. >> >> > > > Can you please respond in ticket? >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > --Yakov >> >> > > > >> >> > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning >> >> ticket >> >> > to >> >> > > >> myself. >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> --Yakov >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic < >> >> [hidden email]>: >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >>> Hi, >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, >> >> > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the >> >> next >> >> > > >>> release. >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> Best regards, >> >> > > >>> Vladisav >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < >> >> > > >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >>> > Folks, >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() >> has >> >> the >> >> > > same >> >> > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot >> be >> >> > > changed >> >> > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit >> lock is >> >> > > held. >> >> > > >>> The >> >> > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() >> >> issue >> >> > > >>> can be >> >> > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore >> >> > > currently >> >> > > >>> > works. >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" >> >> message, >> >> > my >> >> > > >>> first >> >> > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups >> >> which >> >> > led >> >> > > >>> to >> >> > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you >> please >> >> > > >>> re-test >> >> > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data >> >> > > structures? >> >> > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue >> when >> >> > I'm >> >> > > >>> done >> >> > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610. >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > > >>> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > > |
|
|
Vlad, I reviewed the code and committed it to ignite-642 branch (after some
minor style changes + I added new tests to suites). Alex G & Sam can you please review (see diff with our current master) and provide comments here. I think we are very close to finish with this issue. Thanks for contributing this! --Yakov 2016-04-11 18:22 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > Vlad, I did not have time today. Will review tomorrow. > > --Yakov > > 2016-04-08 13:51 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: > >> Very good news, Vlad! I will take a look over weekend or on Monday. >> >> --Yakov >> >> 2016-04-08 12:58 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: >> >>> Yakov, >>> >>> sorry for the long delay, I added another commit to the PR, >>> can you please do the review again? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Vladisav >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic < >>> [hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again? >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> Vlad, can you please check my comments again? >>> >> >>> >> --Yakov >>> >> >>> >> 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <[hidden email]>: >>> >> >>> >> > Hi Yakov, >>> >> > >>> >> > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now, >>> >> > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is >>> needed. >>> >> > >>> >> > Once ignite-642 is merged into master, >>> >> > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6. >>> >> > release). >>> >> > >>> >> > Best regrads, >>> >> > Vladisav >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov < >>> [hidden email]> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments? >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Thanks! >>> >> > > -- >>> >> > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D >>> >> > > *GridGain Systems* >>> >> > > www.gridgain.com >>> >> > > >>> >> > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: >>> >> > > >>> >> > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.), >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket. >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding >>> >> optimized-classnames.properties. >>> >> > > > Can you please respond in ticket? >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > --Yakov >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <[hidden email]>: >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning >>> >> ticket >>> >> > to >>> >> > > >> myself. >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> --Yakov >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic < >>> >> [hidden email]>: >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >>> Hi, >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642, >>> >> > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the >>> >> next >>> >> > > >>> release. >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> Best regards, >>> >> > > >>> Vladisav >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < >>> >> > > >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> > Folks, >>> >> > > >>> > >>> >> > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() >>> has >>> >> the >>> >> > > same >>> >> > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology >>> cannot be >>> >> > > changed >>> >> > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit >>> lock is >>> >> > > held. >>> >> > > >>> The >>> >> > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the >>> lock() >>> >> issue >>> >> > > >>> can be >>> >> > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way >>> IgniteSemaphore >>> >> > > currently >>> >> > > >>> > works. >>> >> > > >>> > >>> >> > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" >>> >> message, >>> >> > my >>> >> > > >>> first >>> >> > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups >>> >> which >>> >> > led >>> >> > > >>> to >>> >> > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you >>> please >>> >> > > >>> re-test >>> >> > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data >>> >> > > structures? >>> >> > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue >>> when >>> >> > I'm >>> >> > > >>> done >>> >> > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610. >>> >> > > >>> > >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> > |
«
Return to Apache Ignite Developers - Legacy Mail Archive
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |