<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Paolo,<br>
<br>
the pending transactions were indeed a problem but this was solved
by issues ISPN-2306 [1] and ISPN-2312 [2].<br>
<br>
Regarding point 1.5, this was implemented in
StateConsumerImpl.applyTransactions(..) and
StatePorviderImpl.getTransactionsForSegments(..). There was indeed
a missing piece that was corrected by ISPN-2306 (the
lookedupEntries field was not populated for transferred
transactions, this is solved by re-executing prepare on the new
node).<br>
<br>
ISPN-2312 also solves an issue with acquiring locks by these
transferred transactions, now we should be ok.<br>
<br>
Regarding point 1.7, if the data is not available yet on a new
owner the write skew check will not detect any issue on this node
indeed but the check will fail on the other owners and cause a
rollback on all nodes anyway, so we should be safe here. <br>
<br>
Is the NBST alternative you mentioned applicable to TO only? We
are very interested to hear about you plans even if they are in an
early stage.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Adrian<br>
<br>
<br>
[1] ISPN-2306 Remove the code that resends PrepareCommands
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2306">https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2306</a>]<br>
[2] ISPN-2312 TransactionTable does not compute minViewId
correctly after NBST was introduced
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2312">https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2312</a>]<br>
<br>
On 09/14/20 12 07:51 PM, Paolo Romano wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:50536076.80507@inesc-id.pt" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi all,<br>
<br>
<meta charset="utf-8">
with Pedro we have been reasoning on the integration of TO-based
replication protocols, and a few questions popped out.<br>
<br>
We may be missing something here, but it seems that the current
NBST implementation is still not providing support for pending
transactions, namely transactions that are prepared but not yet
committed at the time in which the node receives a state
transfer request. We have tried to figure out how you plan to do
this by checking the design document:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://community.jboss.org/wiki/Non-BlockingStateTransferV2">https://community.jboss.org/wiki/Non-BlockingStateTransferV2</a><br>
<br>
but we still have some doubts. The relevant extract seems to be
the following:<br>
<br>
1.3 For new segments, it asks one of the current owners
(the donor) for the transactions and locks.<br>
1.4 The donor only replies with the transactions and locks
after it has installed the new toplogy. We need this to make
sure a proper pending CH is also installed on the donor and
request forwarding to the new pending owners is in place
(forwarding is explained in request handling section).<br>
1.5 The transactions and locks are applied on acceptor.<br>
1.6 The acceptor requests new data segments from donor
asynchronously.<br>
1.7 Unblock all incoming commands. We are now prepared to
process commands although some data segments are still flowing
in.<br>
<br>
In point 1.7, you say that you can already process commands for
data segments that a node has not received yet. However, if the
command is, say, a prepare for a key in a missing data segment
and the transaction is requesting a validation (write-skew
check), you would still need to block as you need the most
updated data version to validate it. Are we getting it right?<br>
<br>
Also, it seems that point 1.5 has not been coded yet. We are
asking this, as these functionalities are likely to be useful
also for the NBST version used by TO-based replication
protocols. Thus, it'd probably be better to wait for these parts
to be stable and re-use them, instead than implementing them
from scratch and end-up possibly with conflicting/incompatible
implementations. When do you plan to have this functionality
implemented?<br>
<br>
Finally, I wanted to point out that Roberto and Sebastiano have
been thinking about an alternative version of the NBST, which
should further reduce the blocking time of transactions. They're
currently still at the design stage, and are working to prepare
a document that we would like to share with you to get
feedback/comments etc. We plan to have a draft of the algorithm
by Sept. 20.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Paolo<br>
<br>
PS: I'll be travelling starting tomorrow and during next week,
so I may not be responding to emails very quickly.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 7/25/12 12:16 PM, Dan Berindei wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+nfvwReFe-y9NSOKpCT-dQycqC1jXECHqEG=b4HM2MZHRX5ng@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Sounds good to me, we should have a little more
breathing room after the NBST alpha to look at the state
transfer integration.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Dan<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Mircea
Markus <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mircea.markus@jboss.com" target="_blank">mircea.markus@jboss.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Hi guys,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've just had a chat with the CloudTM team(CC) around
the integration of TOB/TOA[1] into Infinispan. Here are
some points:</div>
<div>- the TOB and TOA code has been reviewed in detail by
us. The only part missing is the state transfer
integration</div>
<div>- there's not a lot of sense in integrating TOB/TOM
over the existing state transfer as we would not back
port that to 5.1 and it would be dropped in 5.2</div>
<div>- CloudTM would rebase the TOB/TOA work on top of the
alpha NBST[2](ATM planned at the end of next week/3
Aug) and we'll integrate that </div>
<div>- first releases of the TOB/TOA would be marked as
experimental in 5.2 </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>How does that sound?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Mircea</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[1] TOA used to be referred to as TOM (M from
multicast). In JGroups terminology that's an Anycast, so
we decided to be consistent with that and use TOAnycast.</div>
<div>[2] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://community.jboss.org/wiki/Non-blockingStateTransfer"
target="_blank">https://community.jboss.org/wiki/Non-blockingStateTransfer</a></div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
infinispan-dev mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org">infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev"
target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org">infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org">infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>