[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-3054) getPlatformMBeanServer behaves badly when called from premain class such as jmxetric
by Tomaz Cerar (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-3054?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Tomaz Cerar updated WFLY-3054:
------------------------------
Issue Type: Enhancement (was: Bug)
> getPlatformMBeanServer behaves badly when called from premain class such as jmxetric
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFLY-3054
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-3054
> Project: WildFly
> Issue Type: Enhancement
> Security Level: Public(Everyone can see)
> Components: JMX
> Affects Versions: JBoss AS7 7.1.1.Final
> Reporter: dpocock
> Assignee: Kabir Khan
> Labels: jboss
>
> JMXetric is a management agent JAR loaded using the JVM argument
> java -javaagent:$JARLIBS/jmxetric-1.0.2.jar .....
> In the premain method (executed before JBoss main() is invoked), jmxetric calls the static method:
> ManagementFactory.getPlatformMBeanServer()
> This puts JMX into a bad state and the jboss.as tree is completely missing when browsed with jconsole
> As a workaround, jmxetric will defer the call to ManagementFactory.getPlatformMBeanServer() using the "initialdelay" parameter set to a value such as 20 seconds.
> However, it would be good if JBoss could act more cleanly in this situation, for example, throwing an exception if ManagementFactory.getPlatformMBeanServer() is called too early, or finding a way to add the "jboss.as" stuff later.
> The 1.0.6 release of jmxetric will include the workaround by default. The bug can be reproduced by setting initialdelay="0" in the sample jmxetric.xml or using jmxetric 1.0.5
> jmxetric versions before 1.0.5 suffer from issues with the jboss logger as discussed in WFLY-895, so this issue was only discovered after removing the logging statements from jmxetric.
> Also covered in jmxetric github:
> https://github.com/ganglia/jmxetric/issues/9
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-3054) getPlatformMBeanServer behaves badly when called from premain class such as jmxetric
by Tomaz Cerar (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-3054?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Tomaz Cerar commented on WFLY-3054:
-----------------------------------
Can you reproduce the same problem on WildFly 8?
> getPlatformMBeanServer behaves badly when called from premain class such as jmxetric
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFLY-3054
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-3054
> Project: WildFly
> Issue Type: Enhancement
> Security Level: Public(Everyone can see)
> Components: JMX
> Affects Versions: JBoss AS7 7.1.1.Final
> Reporter: dpocock
> Assignee: Kabir Khan
> Labels: jboss
>
> JMXetric is a management agent JAR loaded using the JVM argument
> java -javaagent:$JARLIBS/jmxetric-1.0.2.jar .....
> In the premain method (executed before JBoss main() is invoked), jmxetric calls the static method:
> ManagementFactory.getPlatformMBeanServer()
> This puts JMX into a bad state and the jboss.as tree is completely missing when browsed with jconsole
> As a workaround, jmxetric will defer the call to ManagementFactory.getPlatformMBeanServer() using the "initialdelay" parameter set to a value such as 20 seconds.
> However, it would be good if JBoss could act more cleanly in this situation, for example, throwing an exception if ManagementFactory.getPlatformMBeanServer() is called too early, or finding a way to add the "jboss.as" stuff later.
> The 1.0.6 release of jmxetric will include the workaround by default. The bug can be reproduced by setting initialdelay="0" in the sample jmxetric.xml or using jmxetric 1.0.5
> jmxetric versions before 1.0.5 suffer from issues with the jboss logger as discussed in WFLY-895, so this issue was only discovered after removing the logging statements from jmxetric.
> Also covered in jmxetric github:
> https://github.com/ganglia/jmxetric/issues/9
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-1785) TOA, inconsistent message delivery
by Bela Ban (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1785?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Bela Ban commented on JGRP-1785:
--------------------------------
Thanks, applied your PR. Ryan, can you confirm this fixes your problem and then resolve the issue ?
Cheers,
> TOA, inconsistent message delivery
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: JGRP-1785
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1785
> Project: JGroups
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 3.5
> Environment: Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle)
> Reporter: Ryan Emerson
> Assignee: Pedro Ruivo
> Fix For: 3.5
>
>
> When sending total order messages between two nodes, for a prolonged period of time, an inconsistency is encountered when comparing each node's total order of messages.
> I believe this issue is related to how sequence numbers are handled in the implementation, not the protocol itself. I appreciate that TOA is designed for environments where the subset of destinations in the network varies, however I have been unable to reproduce this error when the total number of nodes is > 2. It is still possible that this inconsistency may occur after a large amount of time when the number of nodes is > 2.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-1785) TOA, inconsistent message delivery
by Pedro Ruivo (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1785?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Pedro Ruivo commented on JGRP-1785:
-----------------------------------
I don't know if I don't have permissions or something similar, but I'm not seeing the pull request link button...
pull request made: https://github.com/belaban/JGroups/pull/126
> TOA, inconsistent message delivery
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: JGRP-1785
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1785
> Project: JGroups
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 3.5
> Environment: Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle)
> Reporter: Ryan Emerson
> Assignee: Pedro Ruivo
> Fix For: 3.5
>
>
> When sending total order messages between two nodes, for a prolonged period of time, an inconsistency is encountered when comparing each node's total order of messages.
> I believe this issue is related to how sequence numbers are handled in the implementation, not the protocol itself. I appreciate that TOA is designed for environments where the subset of destinations in the network varies, however I have been unable to reproduce this error when the total number of nodes is > 2. It is still possible that this inconsistency may occur after a large amount of time when the number of nodes is > 2.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-1802) OverlappingUnicastMergeTest
by Richard Achmatowicz (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1802?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Richard Achmatowicz commented on JGRP-1802:
-------------------------------------------
Also, here you install a view by sending a VIEW_CHANGE event up the stack and down the stack, whereas in OverlappingMergeTest, you install a view my calling GMS.installView(newView).
Are these equivalent?
> OverlappingUnicastMergeTest
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: JGRP-1802
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1802
> Project: JGroups
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 3.2.13
> Environment: Solaris, RHEL
> Reporter: Richard Achmatowicz
> Assignee: Bela Ban
> Fix For: 3.2.13, 3.5
>
>
> OverlappingUnicastMergeTest does the following:
> - set up three channels a,b,c with the layers MERGE2, VERIFY_SUSPECT and FC removed
> - the receiver of each channel will look at all incoming messages: if mcast, ignore it; if unicast, add to the list of messages received
> - inject some new view into the channels which represents a view configuration which should be recovered from
> - send messages to the channels and check that the messages are received, despite the injected view
> OverlappingUnicastMergeTest this test is failing in a number of ways (i.e. many of the test methods are failing within the test class on multiple platforms.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-1802) OverlappingUnicastMergeTest
by Richard Achmatowicz (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1802?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Richard Achmatowicz edited comment on JGRP-1802 at 3/3/14 10:03 AM:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I also noticed that the test description you provided in the javadoc for testWithViewBC() is no longer carried out in the test.
In the javadoc description, you:
- send messages
- inject a new view and then
- send more messages
whereas in the actual test, you just inject a view and then send messages).
Any reason for the change? The first test seems more realistic.
was (Author: rachmato):
I also noticed that the test description you provided in the javadoc for testWithViewBC() is no longer carried out in the test.
In the javadoc description, you:
- send messages
- inject a new view and then
- send more messages
whereas in the actual test, you just inject a view and then send messages).
Any reason for the change? The first test seems more realistic.
> OverlappingUnicastMergeTest
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: JGRP-1802
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1802
> Project: JGroups
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 3.2.13
> Environment: Solaris, RHEL
> Reporter: Richard Achmatowicz
> Assignee: Bela Ban
> Fix For: 3.2.13, 3.5
>
>
> OverlappingUnicastMergeTest does the following:
> - set up three channels a,b,c with the layers MERGE2, VERIFY_SUSPECT and FC removed
> - the receiver of each channel will look at all incoming messages: if mcast, ignore it; if unicast, add to the list of messages received
> - inject some new view into the channels which represents a view configuration which should be recovered from
> - send messages to the channels and check that the messages are received, despite the injected view
> OverlappingUnicastMergeTest this test is failing in a number of ways (i.e. many of the test methods are failing within the test class on multiple platforms.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-1802) OverlappingUnicastMergeTest
by Richard Achmatowicz (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1802?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Richard Achmatowicz commented on JGRP-1802:
-------------------------------------------
I also noticed that the test description you provided in the javadoc for testWithViewBC() is no longer carried out in the test.
In the javadoc description, you:
- send messages
- inject a new view and then
- send more messages
whereas in the actual test, you just inject a view and then send messages).
Any reason for the change? The first test seems more realistic.
> OverlappingUnicastMergeTest
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: JGRP-1802
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1802
> Project: JGroups
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 3.2.13
> Environment: Solaris, RHEL
> Reporter: Richard Achmatowicz
> Assignee: Bela Ban
> Fix For: 3.2.13, 3.5
>
>
> OverlappingUnicastMergeTest does the following:
> - set up three channels a,b,c with the layers MERGE2, VERIFY_SUSPECT and FC removed
> - the receiver of each channel will look at all incoming messages: if mcast, ignore it; if unicast, add to the list of messages received
> - inject some new view into the channels which represents a view configuration which should be recovered from
> - send messages to the channels and check that the messages are received, despite the injected view
> OverlappingUnicastMergeTest this test is failing in a number of ways (i.e. many of the test methods are failing within the test class on multiple platforms.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11 years, 7 months