Re: [infinispan-dev] Thread pools monitoring

On 07/11/14 13:45, Radim Vansa wrote: > Hijacking thread 'Remoting package refactor' as the discussion has shifted. > > Sure, AOP is another approach. However, besided another limitations, > Byteman rules are quite fragile with respect to different versions: if > you're injecting code based on internal implementation method, when the > name/signature changes, the rule is broken. Sometimes you even have to > use AT LINE to formulate the injection point. Right. This is the same problem though as when support needs to create a (e.f. one-off) patch to be applied by a customer: they need to grab the exact same version the customer is running. So each diagnosis package would have to be dependent on the version (of JGroups or JDG) used. Regardless of whether custom rules are added by a support engineer, this has to be tested anyway before sending it off to the customer. > Would you accept a compile-time dependency to some annotations package > in JGroups that could 'tag' the injection points? The idea is that > anyone changing the source code would move the injection point > annotations as well. You mean something like this ? @InjectionPoint("down") public void down(Event e) or @InjectingPoint ("num_msgs_sent") protected int num_msgs_sent; No, this won't work... how would you do that ?

I don't really like this, on a general principle: AOP should *not* have to change the src code in order to work. And the fact of the matter is that you won't be able to identify *all* injection points beforehand... unless you want to sprinkle your code with annotations.

> I was already thinking about this in relation with Message Flow Tracer > [1] (not working right now as the JGroups have changed since I was > writing that)? I took a quick look: nice ! This is exactly what I meant. Should be some sort of rule base in a VCS, to which support engineers add rules when they have a case which requires it and they deem it to be generally useful. Re API changes: doesn't Byteman have functionality which can check a rule set against a code base (offline), to find out incompatibilities ? Something like a static rule checker ?

> Roman Macor is right now updating the rules and I was > hoping that we could insert annotations into JGroups that would be used > instead of the rules (I was already considering different AOP framework > as Byteman does not allow AT EXIT to catch on leaving exceptions [2]). Yes, I've also run into this before, not really nice. > Radim > > [1] https://github.com/rvansa/message-flow-tracer > [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/BYTEMAN-237 > > On 11/07/2014 01:21 PM, Bela Ban wrote: >> Hi Radim, >> >> no I haven't. However, you can replace the thread pools used by JGroups >> and use custom pools. >> >> I like another idea better: inject Byteman code at runtime that keeps >> track of this, and *other useful stats as well*. >> >> It would be very useful to support if we could ship a package to a >> customer that is injected into their running system and grabs all the >> vital stats we need for a few minutes, then removes itself again and >> those stats are then sent to use as a ZIP file. >> The good thing about byteman is that it can remove itself without a >> trace; ie. there's no overhead before / after running byteman. >> >> >> On 07/11/14 09:31, Radim Vansa wrote: >>> Btw., have you ever considered checks if a thread returns to pool >>> reasonably often? Some of the other datagrids use this, though there's >>> not much how to react upon that beyond printing out stack traces (but >>> you can at least report to management that some node seems to be broken). >>> >>> Radim >>> >>> On 11/07/2014 08:35 AM, Bela Ban wrote: >>>> That's exactly what I suggested. No config gives you a shared global >>>> thread pool for all caches. >>>> >>>> Those caches which need a separate pool can do that via configuration >>>> (and of course also programmatically) >>>> >>>> On 06/11/14 20:31, Tristan Tarrant wrote: >>>>> My opinion is that we should aim for less configuration, i.e. >>>>> threadpools should mostly have sensible defaults and be shared by >>>>> default unless there are extremely good reasons for not doing so. >>>>> >>>>> Tristan >>>>> >>>>> On 06/11/14 19:40, Radim Vansa wrote: >>>>>> I second the opinion that any threadpools should be shared by default. >>>>>> There are users who have hundreds or thousands of caches and having >>>>>> separate threadpool for each of them could easily drain resources. And >>>>>> sharing resources is the purpose of threadpools, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> Radim >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/06/2014 04:37 PM, Bela Ban wrote: >>>>>>> #1 I would by default have 1 thread pool shared by all caches >>>>>>> #2 This global thread pool should be configurable, perhaps in the >>>>>>> <global> section ? >>>>>>> #3 Each cache by default uses the gobal thread pool >>>>>>> #4 A cache can define its own thread pool, then it would use this one >>>>>>> and not the global thread pool >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think this gives you a mixture between ease of use and flexibility in >>>>>>> configuring pool per cache if needed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 06/11/14 16:23, Pedro Ruivo wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/06/2014 03:01 PM, Bela Ban wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 06/11/14 15:36, Pedro Ruivo wrote: >>>>>>>>>> * added a single thread remote executor service. This will handle the >>>>>>>>>> FIFO deliver commands. Previously, they were handled by JGroups incoming >>>>>>>>>> threads and with a new executor service, each cache can process their >>>>>>>>>> own FIFO commands concurrently. >>>>>>>>> +1000. This allows multiple updates from the same sender but to >>>>>>>>> different caches to be executed in parallel, and will speed thing up. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you intend to share a thread pool between the invocations handlers of >>>>>>>>> the various caches, or do they each have their own thread pool ? Or is >>>>>>>>> this configurable ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is question that cross my mind and I don't have any idea what would >>>>>>>> be the best. So, for now, I will leave the thread pool shared between >>>>>>>> the handlers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Never thought to make it configurable, but maybe that is the best >>>>>>>> option. And maybe, it should be possible to have different max-thread >>>>>>>> size per cache. For example: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * all caches using this remote executor will share the same instance >>>>>>>> <remote-executor name="shared" shared="true" max-threads=4.../> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * all caches using this remote executor will create their own thread >>>>>>>> pool with max-threads equals to 1 >>>>>>>> <remote-executor name="low-throughput-cache" shared="false" >>>>>>>> max-threads=1 .../> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * all caches using this remote executor will create their own thread >>>>>>>> pool with max-threads equals to 1000 >>>>>>>> <remote executor name="high-throughput-cache" shared="false" >>>>>>>> max-thread=1000 .../> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is this what you have in mind? comments? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Pedro >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list >>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev >>>>> >