February 2016 - infinispan-issues

[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-3918) Inconsistent view of the cache with putIfAbsent in a non-tx cache during state transfer

by Tristan Tarrant (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3918?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Tristan Tarrant updated ISPN-3918: ---------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 8.2.0.CR1 (was: 8.2.0.Beta2) > Inconsistent view of the cache with putIfAbsent in a non-tx cache during state transfer > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: ISPN-3918 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3918 > Project: Infinispan > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Core, State Transfer > Affects Versions: 6.0.0.Final > Reporter: Dan Berindei > Fix For: 8.2.0.CR1 > > Attachments: ntpiadjst.log.gz > > > In a non-tx cache, sometimes it's possible for a {{get(k)}} to return {{null}} even though a previous {{putIfAbsent(k, v)}} returned a non-null value and the only concurrent operations on the cache are concurrent putIfAbsent calls. > Say \[B, A, C] are the owners of k (C just joined) > 1. A starts a {{putIfAbsent(k, v1)}} command, sends it to B > 2. B forwards the command to A and C > 3. C writes {{k=v1}} > 4. C becomes the primary owner of k (owners are now \[C, A]) > 5. A/B see the new topology before committing and throw an outdatedTopologyException > 6. A retries the command, sends it to C > 7. C forwards the command to A, which writes {{k=v1}} > 8. C doesn't have to update the entry, returns null > If, between steps 3 and 7, another thread on A starts a {{putIfAbsent(k, v2)}} command, the command will fail and return {{v1}} (because the primary owner already has a value). However, a subsequent {{get(k)}} command will return {{null}}, because A is an owner and doesn't have the value. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

10 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-3906) Do not place ProtobufValueWrapper instances in the cache

by Tristan Tarrant (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3906?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Tristan Tarrant updated ISPN-3906: ---------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 8.2.0.CR1 (was: 8.2.0.Beta2) > Do not place ProtobufValueWrapper instances in the cache > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: ISPN-3906 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3906 > Project: Infinispan > Issue Type: Task > Components: Embedded Querying > Affects Versions: 6.0.0.Final > Reporter: Adrian Nistor > Assignee: Adrian Nistor > Fix For: 8.2.0.CR1 > > > ProtobufValueWrapper is only needed in order to provide a classbridge so we can integrate with Hibernate Search. Still, we should not need to wrap the protobuf encoded byte array put in the cache with this class. It should only be created as a temporary wrapper just before we feed the data to Hibernate Search. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

10 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-3905) Murmurhash3 implementation is slow on String keys

by Tristan Tarrant (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3905?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Tristan Tarrant updated ISPN-3905: ---------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 8.2.0.CR1 (was: 8.2.0.Beta2) > Murmurhash3 implementation is slow on String keys > ------------------------------------------------- > > Key: ISPN-3905 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3905 > Project: Infinispan > Issue Type: Enhancement > Components: Core > Affects Versions: 6.0.0.Final, 6.0.1.Final > Reporter: Sanne Grinovero > Assignee: Dan Berindei > Priority: Minor > Fix For: 8.2.0.CR1 > > > String instances are a common choice for being used as key entries, still the getBytes() operation being performed allocates costly buffers, and the computation to get those bytes looks like expensive too. > I suspect there might be good reasons for not using the String's own hashcode directly as an input to Murmurhash? Still that's what other implementations seem to do. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

10 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-3891) Tune for batching without transactions

by Tristan Tarrant (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3891?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Tristan Tarrant updated ISPN-3891: ---------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 8.2.0.CR1 (was: 8.2.0.Beta2) > Tune for batching without transactions > -------------------------------------- > > Key: ISPN-3891 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3891 > Project: Infinispan > Issue Type: Enhancement > Components: Transactions > Reporter: Sanne Grinovero > Fix For: 8.2.0.CR1 > > > The usage of batching is a critically important feature, widely used to improve performance in many common scenarios, but while documentation makes it clear that it's built on transactions, it's unclear how these transactions should be configured. > Also, I would challenge the decision of building batching on top of transactions and see if there are opportunities for further optimization. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

10 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-3835) Index Update command is processed before the registry listener is triggered

by Tristan Tarrant (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3835?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Tristan Tarrant updated ISPN-3835: ---------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 8.2.0.CR1 (was: 8.2.0.Beta2) > Index Update command is processed before the registry listener is triggered > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: ISPN-3835 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3835 > Project: Infinispan > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Embedded Querying > Affects Versions: 6.0.0.Final > Reporter: Sanne Grinovero > Assignee: Gustavo Fernandes > Priority: Critical > Labels: 64QueryBlockers > Fix For: 8.2.0.CR1 > > > When using the InfinispanIndexManager backend the master node might receive an index update command about an index which it hasn't defined yet. > Index definitions are triggered by the type registry, which in turn is driven by the ClusterRegistry and an event listener on the ClusterRegistry. It looks like slaves are sending update requests before the master has processed the configuration event. > This leads to index update commands to be lost (with a stacktrace logged) -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

10 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-4596) Avoid index cleanup operations on putIfAbsent

by Tristan Tarrant (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-4596?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Tristan Tarrant updated ISPN-4596: ---------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 8.2.0.CR1 (was: 8.2.0.Beta2) > Avoid index cleanup operations on putIfAbsent > --------------------------------------------- > > Key: ISPN-4596 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-4596 > Project: Infinispan > Issue Type: Enhancement > Components: Embedded Querying > Reporter: Sanne Grinovero > Assignee: Gustavo Fernandes > Fix For: 8.2.0.CR1 > > > when doing a putIfAbsent() operation we can relax some of the internal cleanup operations, such as automatically enabling the Flag.SKIP_INDEX_CLEANUP -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

10 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-4722) CLI remove is not cluster-wide

by Tristan Tarrant (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-4722?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Tristan Tarrant updated ISPN-4722: ---------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 8.2.0.CR1 (was: 8.2.0.Beta2) > CLI remove is not cluster-wide > ------------------------------ > > Key: ISPN-4722 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-4722 > Project: Infinispan > Issue Type: Bug > Components: CLI > Affects Versions: 6.0.2.Final, 7.0.0.Beta1 > Reporter: Galder Zamarreño > Assignee: Tristan Tarrant > Fix For: 8.2.0.CR1 > > > In CLI, the "remove" command does not delete entries in all nodes of a clustered environment, only the local copy. However, the "put" command does write in all nodes. Is it the expected behavior? See example below: > {code} > node 1 > put k1 v1 > get k1 -> v1 > node 2 > get k1 -> v1 > node 1 > remove k1 > get k1 -> null > node 2 > get k1 -> v1 > {code} > I know that these commands provided by CLI are not used in real world, but they are useful to demonstrate the correct configuration of a JDG cluster. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

10 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-4584) Stricter validation of cache configurations for distributed indexes

by Tristan Tarrant (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-4584?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Tristan Tarrant updated ISPN-4584: ---------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 8.2.0.CR1 (was: 8.2.0.Beta2) > Stricter validation of cache configurations for distributed indexes > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: ISPN-4584 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-4584 > Project: Infinispan > Issue Type: Enhancement > Components: Lucene Directory > Reporter: Sanne Grinovero > Assignee: Gustavo Fernandes > Fix For: 8.2.0.CR1 > > > See also ISPN-4577 : it should not be allowed to configure a distributed metadata cache while the chunks cache is using local mode. > Ideally think of additional strict checks which we should apply.. suggestions? > Mitigated by ISPN-4340 -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

10 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-4340) Automatically setup shared indexes when indexing is enabled

by Tristan Tarrant (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-4340?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Tristan Tarrant updated ISPN-4340: ---------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 8.2.0.CR1 (was: 8.2.0.Beta2) > Automatically setup shared indexes when indexing is enabled > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: ISPN-4340 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-4340 > Project: Infinispan > Issue Type: Feature Request > Components: Embedded Querying > Reporter: Sanne Grinovero > Assignee: Gustavo Fernandes > Labels: 64QueryBlockers > Fix For: 8.2.0.CR1 > > > - on replicated Caches, we should create a default index on a FSDirectory and provide some appropriate default tuning, for example enabling NRT. > - distributed Caches will need the Infinispan Directory (shared) and a master/slave backend (Infinispan IndexManager, while NRT is not compatible in this case) > We want to keep the properties configuration structure as well as an "advanced tuning" and override capabilities of the default choices. > Some more common options like sync/async indexing should probably be promoted to be controlled by the XML elements and configuration DSL excplicitly. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

10 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-4286) Two concurrent putIfAbsent operations can both return null during rebalance

by Tristan Tarrant (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-4286?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Tristan Tarrant updated ISPN-4286: ---------------------------------- Fix Version/s: 8.2.0.CR1 (was: 8.2.0.Beta2) > Two concurrent putIfAbsent operations can both return null during rebalance > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: ISPN-4286 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-4286 > Project: Infinispan > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Core, State Transfer > Affects Versions: 6.0.2.Final > Reporter: Dan Berindei > Assignee: Dan Berindei > Priority: Critical > Fix For: 8.2.0.CR1 > > > If the cache topology changes while executing a putIfAbsent operation, the old primary owner will throw an OutdatedTopologyException, and the originator will retry on the new owner. > When retrying the PutKeyValueCommand on the new primary owner, we compare the current value with the command's new value. If they are equal, we assume that the initial command wrote the old value, and we return {{null}}. > However, the value might have been written by another putIfAbsent operation. So we could have two {{putIfAbsent(k, v)}} operations, both returning {{null}}. > {code} > A is the originator, B is the primary owner, k = null > A -> B: putIfAbsent(k, v1) > B dies before writing v, C is now primary owner > D -> C: putIfAbsent(k, v1) // another put operation from D, with the same value > C -> D: null // correct > A -> C: retry_putIfAbsent(k, v1) > C -> A: null // C assumes A is overwriting its own value, so it's also returning null > {code} -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.11#64026)

10 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

infinispan-issues February 2016