Re: [infinispan-dev] Possible Bug in Distribution Manager

Hi Pedro, >From your logs it looks like the CH function has duplicate addresses in it and that's what's causing some nodes to return the same owner twice: 12:04:03,505 TRACE [DistributionManagerImpl] New CH is DefaultConsistentHash{addresses ={73=node09-42492, 848=node02-34421, 1849=node03-61513, 1850=node03-61513, 2093=node10-3814, 2094=node10-3814, 2380=node08-968, 2381=node08-968, 3182=node04-53049, 3183=node04-53049, *5868=node07-42120, 5869=node07-42120,* 5914=node05-23599, 5915=node05-23599, 6410=node01-27066, 6978=node06-24999, 8485=node11-42115, 8486=node11-42115}, hash space =10240} How old is your snapshot? Since 5.0.0.ALPHA4 the CH interface uses Set<Address>, so duplicates should never happen. I think it would be better to use the latest CR release instead, 5.0.0.CR3, so you (and us) know exactly what code you're using. Cheers Dan I think my changes for ISPN-110 On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Pedro Ruivo <pruivo(a)gsd.inesc-id.pt&gt; wrote: > > Hi, > > > > My name is Pedro and I am working in CloudTM project. > > > > I think that I may have encountered a possible bug in the consistent > > hash function. > > > > I am working on Infinispan 'Pagoa' 5.0.0-SNAPSHOT with JGroups 3.0.0 > > Alpha1 and I have a total of 100 000 keys distributed by 11 nodes. > > > > I am using Radargun, that was modified to execute the maximum number of > > transactions in a 5 minutes run. All transactions updates at least one > > key, ie, I didn't have read-only transactions. > > > > At the end of the test, ?I am printing all the keys and their location > > (keys' owners), and, as you can see for instance here [1], different > > nodes have different opinions concerning which replicas are in charge of > > storing some keys. > > > > Note that I didn't change anything in the distribution code and my tests > > only update keys, never delete them. > > > > Part of the log can be found in [2] and the config file is in [3]. In > > the log file we have a lot of 'WARN ?[DistLockingInterceptor] xxx entry > > commit warmup_key(...) => ?Thread(...)'. Ignore this entries. > > > > Unfortunately, the problem does not always show up, in my tests this > > shows up, say, 5% of the times. > > > > Did this ever happen to you, or am I hitting a known issue? > > > > I hope that the information that I am providing can be sufficient to > > reproduce the bug, let me know if there is anything else that I can do > > to help.... > > > > Cheers > > Pedro > > > > [1] -http://pastebin.com/Pp47ctj9 > > [2] -http://pastebin.com/tpSXqVmV > > [3] -http://pastebin.com/vjVP48L2 > > > > -- > > INESC-ID Lisboa, sala 511 > > gsd.inesc-id.pt/~pruivo > > > > _______________________________________________ > > infinispan-dev mailing list > > infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > >