[infinispan-issues] [JBoss JIRA] (ISPN-2801) Should ByteArrayKey handling in MurmurHash3 be moved to Hot Rod server?

Should ByteArrayKey handling in MurmurHash3 be moved to Hot Rod server? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Key: ISPN-2801 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2801 Project: Infinispan Issue Type: Task Reporter: Galder Zamarreño Assignee: Galder Zamarreño Priority: Minor [12:19] <manik> mmarkus: ok, next question. This looks like a bug. [12:19] <manik> mmarkus: so on the client, we route requests based on the key, which is in the form of a byte[] [12:19] <manik> mmarkus: as per org.infinispan.client.hotrod.impl.consistenthash.ConsistentHash#getServer(byte[] key) [12:20] <mmarkus> manik: yes [12:20] <manik> mmarkus: and the key is serialised using whatever marshaller is configured on the client [12:20] <manik> but when that key arrives on the server [12:20] <manik> it is wrapped into a ByteArrayKey [12:20] <manik> and that is used on the server to map the entry to a node [12:21] * vchepeli (chepa653@nat/redhat/x-svfcqlzqtfwwujho) has left #infinispan [12:21] * papegaaij has quit (Remote host closed the connection) [12:21] <manik> mmarkus: so potentially what the client sees as data owners and what the server nodes see as data owners are different? [12:21] <manik> galderz: you got a sec for this? [12:21] <galderz> sure manik [12:21] <manik> galderz: pls see my comments to mmarkus above [12:23] * sannegrinovero (Sanne@redhat/jboss/sannegrinovero) has joined #infinispan [12:23] * ChanServ gives voice to sannegrinovero [12:23] <galderz> manik, the hash on the ByteArrayKey is essentially a hash on the contens of the byte array [12:24] * tsykora (tsykora@nat/redhat/x-eelluveahnctzoui) has joined #infinispan [12:24] <galderz> to be precise: 41 + Arrays.hashCode(data) [12:24] <galderz> that the passed through the MurmurHash [12:26] <galderz> manik, we handle it: [12:26] <galderz> else if (o instanceof ByteArrayKey) [12:26] <galderz> return hash(((ByteArrayKey) o).getData()); [12:27] <galderz> so manik, regardless of whether it's a byte[] or a ByteArrayKey, the hash should be the same, //cc mmarkus [12:28] <mmarkus> galderz: +1 [12:28] * mmarkus has quit (Quit: Leaving.) [12:28] <galderz> i'm quite certain we have some tests that verify this - can't remember of the top of my head [12:28] <manik> galderz: ah, yes this is in the murmurhash3 impl [12:29] <manik> ok, no wonder I couldnt find it [12:29] <manik> :) [12:29] <manik> I just saw that on one side you're calling locate() with a byte[] and on the other, with a ByteArrayKey so that set off an alarm [12:30] <galderz> manik, you have a point though, it shou;dn't be specific to MurmurHash3 [12:39] <manik> galderz: do you want to create a JIRA to refactor this somewhere else? E.g., it makes sense for this logic to actually be in the Hot Rod server code - since that's where ByteArrayKeys are used. :) [12:40] <galderz> manik, why? clients still need this logic too [12:40] <manik> galderz: no they dont [12:40] <galderz> oh, u mean handling BAKs? [12:40] <manik> yep [12:40] <galderz> manik, maybe… but did u check the history to see why that was put there? [12:41] <manik> No - maybe worth a chat with dberindei? [12:41] <manik> galderz: ^^