Hi Manik, While the fix I made for EntityWrapper fixed the cache in local mode, the replicated mode[1] (pretty sure dist is the same) is far from working. The issue is the following: node1.put(k,v2) :: WL(k1) -> releaseLock(k1) -> replicate(k1) -> incoming_thread_performs put (k, *v2*) node2.put(k,v2) :: WL(k2) -> releaseLock(k2) -> replicate(k2) -> incoming_thread_performs put (k, *v1*) now in this scenario both operation succeed! This is caused by the fact that lock interceptor is *after* repl interceptor in the chain, so when repl is triggered the key is no longer locked. In other words, if the puts happen at the same time, on the same key then both might succeed, leaving the cluster in an inconsistent state. IMO, the correct approach would be to keep the lock while doing the replication. This would reduce the concurrency though, as locks would be held for longer amounts of time. But the data consistency would increase. (this would be an easy fix for Repl, but dist relies on interceptor's order). I've also tried doing the call within a tx, but there's a deadlock - I'll investigate this on Mon. [1] I know disyt is what we'll use but problem exists for repl as well Cheers, Mircea _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev

Hi, Please note that the tests running in REPL_SYNC mode are not failing anymore, just DIST is still failing.

I've ported the test to core, as agreed in group "stress" as it's slow so it's not starting automatically: mvn test -Dtest=org.infinispan.stress.PutIfAbsentStressTest Please have a look to the different configurations I've set it to test; it should be trivial to add more configurations you might want to check. thanks for all the support, Regards, Sanne 2009/10/23 Mircea Markus <mircea.markus(a)jboss.com&gt;: > Hi Manik, > > While the fix I made for EntityWrapper fixed the cache in local mode, > the replicated mode[1] (pretty sure dist is the same) is far from > working. > The issue is the following: > node1.put(k,v2) :: WL(k1) -> releaseLock(k1) -> replicate(k1) -> > incoming_thread_performs put (k, *v2*) > node2.put(k,v2) :: WL(k2) -> releaseLock(k2) -> replicate(k2) -> > incoming_thread_performs put (k, *v1*) > > now in this scenario both operation succeed! This is caused by the > fact that lock interceptor is *after* repl interceptor in the chain, > so when repl is triggered the key is no longer locked. > In other words, if the puts happen at the same time, on the same key > then both might succeed, leaving the cluster in an inconsistent > state. > IMO, the correct approach would be to keep the lock while doing the > replication. This would reduce the concurrency though, as locks would > be held for longer amounts of time. But the data consistency would > increase. (this would be an easy fix for Repl, but dist relies on > interceptor's order). > > I've also tried doing the call within a tx, but there's a deadlock - > I'll investigate this on Mon. > > [1] I know disyt is what we'll use but problem exists for repl as > well > > Cheers, > Mircea > _______________________________________________ > 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