[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-10798) JCache annotations attribute cacheResolverFactory is ignored
by Tristan Tarrant (Jira)
[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ISPN-10798?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Tristan Tarrant updated ISPN-10798:
-----------------------------------
Sprint: DataGrid Sprint #35, DataGrid Sprint #36, DataGrid Sprint #37, DataGrid Sprint #38, DataGrid Sprint #39, DataGrid Sprint #42 (was: DataGrid Sprint #35, DataGrid Sprint #36, DataGrid Sprint #37, DataGrid Sprint #38, DataGrid Sprint #39)
> JCache annotations attribute cacheResolverFactory is ignored
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ISPN-10798
> URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ISPN-10798
> Project: Infinispan
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: JCache
> Affects Versions: 9.4.16.Final, 10.0.0.CR3
> Reporter: Dan Berindei
> Assignee: Dan Berindei
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 10.1.0.Final
>
>
> The JCache TCK doesn't seem to require support for {{cacheResolverFactory}}, but having it would allow us to have an alternative to the managed interceptors {{InjectedCache*Interceptor}} and to deprecate them.
> We can then move the default interceptors to the jcache-commons module, so they support both embedded and remote caches.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)
5 years, 9 months
[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-10673) Remove Cross-Site Replication from Local caches
by Tristan Tarrant (Jira)
[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ISPN-10673?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Tristan Tarrant updated ISPN-10673:
-----------------------------------
Sprint: DataGrid Sprint #42
> Remove Cross-Site Replication from Local caches
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ISPN-10673
> URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ISPN-10673
> Project: Infinispan
> Issue Type: Enhancement
> Components: Cross-Site Replication
> Reporter: Pedro Ruivo
> Assignee: Pedro Ruivo
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 11.0.0.Dev04
>
>
> Currently, nothing prevents a local cache to have a site configured. However, this setup doesn't make much sense since we don't know to which node in the remote site the request is sent. (Except if the remote site only is a single node)
> I believe it makes sense to remove it.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)
5 years, 9 months
[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-11024) Unable to use binary memory eviction with protobuf
by Tristan Tarrant (Jira)
[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ISPN-11024?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Tristan Tarrant updated ISPN-11024:
-----------------------------------
Sprint: DataGrid Sprint #42
> Unable to use binary memory eviction with protobuf
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ISPN-11024
> URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ISPN-11024
> Project: Infinispan
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Server
> Affects Versions: 10.0.1.Final
> Reporter: Jens Reimann
> Assignee: Will Burns
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 10.1.0.Final, 11.0.0.Final
>
>
> Enabling binary eviction, e.g.:
> {code:xml}
> <memory>
> <binary strategy="REMOVE" size="134217728" eviction="MEMORY"/>
> </memory>
> {code}
> When storing protobuf based types, throws the following exception:
> {code}
> 15:36:29,859 ERROR [org.infinispan.interceptors.impl.InvocationContextInterceptor] (async-thread--p2-t18) ISPN000136: Error executing command PrepareCommand on Cache 'devices', writing keys []: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Size of Class class org.infinispan.query.remote.impl.indexing.ProtobufValueWrapper cannot be determined using given entry size calculator :class org.infinispan.container.entries.PrimitiveEntrySizeCalculator
> {code}
> As protobuf produces a binary representation of the data, it is possible to calculate a size for that object.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)
5 years, 9 months
[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-8232) Transaction inconsistency during network partitions
by Tristan Tarrant (Jira)
[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ISPN-8232?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Tristan Tarrant updated ISPN-8232:
----------------------------------
Status: Open (was: Pull Request Sent)
> Transaction inconsistency during network partitions
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ISPN-8232
> URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ISPN-8232
> Project: Infinispan
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Transactions
> Affects Versions: 9.1.0.Final
> Reporter: Pedro Ruivo
> Assignee: Pedro Ruivo
> Priority: Critical
> Labels: consistency
>
> In scenario where the originator stays in minor partition (in our test suite, the originator isolated tests), it is possible to a transaction to be committed and rolled back in the majority partition.
> In {{Pessimitic Locking}}, the transaction is committed in one-phase using the {{PrepareCommand}}. If the partition happens when the originator sends the {{PrepareCommand}}, the nodes in the majority partition may or may not receive it. We can have the case where some nodes receive the {{PrepareCommand}} and applied and other don't receive it.
> When the topology is updated in the majority partition, the {{TransactionTable}} rollbacks all transaction in which the originator isn't present. So, in the nodes where the {{PrepareCommand}} isn't received, the transaction is rolled back.
> The originator in the minory partition detects the partition and marks the transaction partially completed. When the merge occurs, it tries to commit the transaction again. In the nodes where the transaction is rolled back, the transaction is marked as completed and when the {{PrepareCommand}} is received, it throws an {{IllegalStateException}} ({{TransactionTable:386, getOrCreateRemoteTransaction()}}). In this case, the transaction isn't removed from the {{PartitionHandlingManager}} and our test suite fails with {{"there are pending tx".}}
> Other theoretically scenario is the {{PrepareCommand}} to be executed when no locks are acquired.
> The same issue can happen with {{Optimistic Locking}} for the {{CommitCommand}}.
> The problem is the transaction table can't identify is the node left gracefully or not. A solution would be to have an {{"expected members"}} list, ideally separated from the {{CacheTopology}} to avoid sending it every time. Also, it would need some sysadmin tools for the case where the node crashes and it won't be back online for a while (or for some reason, it doesn't need to be back online).
> A sysadmin could remove the node from this list ({{CacheTopology}} is updated and there is no need to increase it) and decide what to do with the pending transactions (or an automatic mechanism to auto-commit/rollback the transaction).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)
5 years, 9 months
[JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-11345) Introduce integration tests for serverNG
by Tristan Tarrant (Jira)
[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ISPN-11345?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Tristan Tarrant updated ISPN-11345:
-----------------------------------
Sprint: DataGrid Sprint #41, DataGrid Sprint #42 (was: DataGrid Sprint #41)
> Introduce integration tests for serverNG
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: ISPN-11345
> URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/ISPN-11345
> Project: Infinispan
> Issue Type: Enhancement
> Affects Versions: 11.0.0.Alpha1
> Reporter: Diego Lovison
> Assignee: Diego Lovison
> Priority: Critical
>
> Introduce integration tests for serverNG
> -Support Arquillian
> -Arquillian is now optional
> -Support multiple Infinispan Servers
> *Support Arquillian*
> Allow the current Infinispan source code to be deployed in the target container
> *Arquillian is now optional*
> As a developer, I would like to run the code without worrying about containers
> *Support multiple Infinispan Servers*
> As a QE, I would like to create a test scenario using multiple Infinispan Servers
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)
5 years, 9 months