[infinispan-dev] Threadpools in a large cluster

[Mircea Markus]

On 1 Feb 2013, at 08:04, Radim Vansa wrote:

> Hi guys,
> 
> after dealing with the large cluster for a while I find the way how we use OOB threads in synchronous configuration non-robust.
> Imagine a situation where node which is not an owner of the key calls PUT. Then the a RPC is called to the primary owner of that key, which reroutes the request to all other owners and after these reply, it replies back.

This delegation RPC pattern happens for non-transactional caches only. Do you have the same problem with transactional caches as well?

> There are two problems:
> 1) If we do simultanously X requests from non-owners to the primary owner where X is OOB TP size, all the OOB threads are waiting for the responses and there is no thread to process the OOB response and release the thread.
> 2) Node A is primary owner of keyA, non-primary owner of keyB and B is primary of keyB and non-primary of keyA. We got many requests for both keyA and keyB from other nodes, therefore, all OOB threads from both nodes call RPC to the non-primary owner but there's noone who could process the request.
> 
> While we wait for the requests to timeout, the nodes with depleted OOB threadpools start suspecting all other nodes because they can't receive heartbeats etc...
> 
> You can say "increase your OOB tp size", but that's not always an option, I have currently set it to 1000 threads and it's not enough. In the end, I will be always limited by RAM and something tells me that even nodes with few gigs of RAM should be able to form a huge cluster. We use 160 hotrod worker threads in JDG, that means that 160 * clusterSize = 10240 (64 nodes in my cluster) parallel requests can be executed, and if 10% targets the same node with 1000 OOB threads, it stucks. It's about scaling and robustness.
> 
> Not that I'd have any good solution, but I'd really like to start a discussion.
> Thinking about it a bit, the problem is that blocking call (calling RPC on primary owner from message handler) can block non-blocking calls (such as RPC response or command that never sends any more messages). Therefore, having a flag on message "this won't send another message" could let the message be executed in different threadpool, which will be never deadlocked. In fact, the pools could share the threads but the non-blocking would have always a few threads spare.
> It's a bad solution as maintaining which message could block in the other node is really, really hard (we can be sure only in case of RPC responses), especially when some locks come. I will welcome anything better.
> 
> Radim
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Radim Vansa
> Quality Assurance Engineer
> JBoss Datagrid
> tel. +420532294559 ext. 62559
> 
> Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
> Brno, Purkyňova 99/71, PSČ 612 45
> Czech Republic
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

Cheers,
-- 
Mircea Markus
Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org)




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/infinispan-dev/attachments/20130207/31627602/attachment.html