[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-2492) TimeScheduler3.add() gets more expensive as the queue size grows
by Bela Ban (Jira)
[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/JGRP-2492?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Bela Ban commented on JGRP-2492:
--------------------------------
The immediate solution is to remove {{removeCancelledTasks()}}; this is not as bad as it sounds, because:
* Tasks are continually removed from the head of the queue. If a task was cancelled, it will simply not get executed (but still removed)
* There are typically 7-9 tasks in the queue, so this is not a big issue
* On {{stop()}}, all tasks are cancelled and removed. Using {{toArray()}} here for iteration is not critical, as this is called before the program terminated anyway.
> TimeScheduler3.add() gets more expensive as the queue size grows
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JGRP-2492
> URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/JGRP-2492
> Project: JGroups
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 4.2.4
> Reporter: Dan Berindei
> Assignee: Bela Ban
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 5.0.0.Final
>
>
> {{TimeScheduler3.add()}} calls {{removeCancelledTasks()}}, which ends up calling {{DelayQueue.toArray()}} (because {{DelayQueue}} doesn't support directly iterating over its contents).
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)
4 years, 2 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFCORE-3485) Misleading failure-description for capabilities in domain
by Brian Stansberry (Jira)
[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFCORE-3485?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug... ]
Brian Stansberry commented on WFCORE-3485:
------------------------------------------
[~mshikalw] I don't think this is an appropriate priority for right now. It is a minor issue that will require too much discussion with people who have critical tasks.
> Misleading failure-description for capabilities in domain
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFCORE-3485
> URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFCORE-3485
> Project: WildFly Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Management
> Affects Versions: 3.0.10.Final
> Reporter: Ondrej Lukas
> Priority: Minor
>
> In case when configuration in domain.xml tries to reference any capability from host.xml (or vice versa), but should not be able to reference it then it correctly fails, but there is failure-description which is misleading.
> Start domain with default domain.xml and host.xml and run following CLI command and see:
> {code}
> /profile=full/subsystem=elytron/http-authentication-factory=some-factory:add(http-server-mechanism-factory=global,security-domain=ManagementDomain)
> {
> "outcome" => "failed",
> "failure-description" => {"domain-failure-description" => "WFLYCTL0369: Required capabilities are not available:
> org.wildfly.security.security-domain.ManagementDomain in context 'profile=full'; Possible registration points for this capability:
> /host=master/subsystem=elytron/security-domain=*
> /profile=*/subsystem=elytron/security-domain=*"},
> "rolled-back" => true
> }
> {code}
> It should show only correct registration point {{/profile=\*/subsystem=elytron/security-domain=\*}}. It is misleading because ManagementDomain capability exists in {{/host=master/subsystem=elytron/security-domain=*}}.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)
4 years, 2 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-13150) Create a Galleon layer for distributable web
by Paul Ferraro (Jira)
[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-13150?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Paul Ferraro commented on WFLY-13150:
-------------------------------------
The term "distributable", meaning "able to be distributed," was taken from the servlet spec (e.g. <distributable/> in web.xml).
IMO, "web-clustering-local" is confusing as the terms clustering and local are effectively antonyms.
> Create a Galleon layer for distributable web
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFLY-13150
> URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-13150
> Project: WildFly
> Issue Type: Feature Request
> Components: Clustering, Web (Undertow)
> Reporter: Brian Stansberry
> Assignee: Paul Ferraro
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 21.0.0.Beta1
>
>
> We have a web-clustering layer that provides the distributable-web subsystem and the related infinispan web session caching resources, configured for multi-server distributed sessions.
> We need a variant of this with infinispan configured for local caching.
> The WFLY-13099 standalone-microprofile.xml config should have this kind of setup; otherwise session sharing does not work . (A failure in org.jboss.as.test.clustering.cluster.web.shared.SharedSessionTestCase if the server uses a config without it shows this.) For WFLY-13099 I can work around this by adding the needed config stuff without a layer, but as everything else needed for those configs are from layers, it's better to use a layer in WF 20.
> Besides it's a good layer to have anyway. :)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)
4 years, 2 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-12649) Deal with mixed-domain failures in the OpenJ9 jobs
by Cheng Fang (Jira)
[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-12649?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Cheng Fang reopened WFLY-12649:
-------------------------------
12 tests in {{MixedDomainDeployment700TestCase}} still failed on Linux JDK 8 and JDK11 intermittently in totally unrelated PR. For instance,
https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/13399
https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/11711
{code}
#6186 at 17 Jul 08:32
Tests failed: 12 (12 new), passed: 6719, ignored: 107
13:11:40
org.jboss.as.test.integration.domain.mixed.eap700.MixedDomainDeployment700TestCase.testJsfWorks
13:11:40
java.lang.AssertionError: {"WFLYDC0074: Operation failed or was rolled back on all servers. Server failures:" => {"server-group" => {"other-server-group" => {"host" => {"slave" => {"server-one" => {"WFLYCTL0062: Composite operation failed and was rolled back. Steps that failed:" => {"Operation step-1" => {
"WFLYCTL0180: Services with missing/unavailable dependencies" => ["jboss.naming.context.java.module.test.test.DefaultJMSConnectionFactory is missing [jboss.naming.context.java.jboss.DefaultJMSConnectionFactory]"],
"WFLYCTL0288: One or more services were unable to start due to one or more indirect dependencies not being available." => {
"Services that were unable to start:" => [
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".CdiValidatorFactoryService",
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".WeldStartService",
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".component.\"com.sun.faces.config.ConfigureListener\".START",
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".component.\"com.sun.faces.config.ConfigureListener\".WeldInstantiator",
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".component.\"javax.faces.webapp.FacetTag\".START",
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".component.\"javax.faces.webapp.FacetTag\".WeldInstantiator",
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".component.\"javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.tlv.PermittedTaglibsTLV\".START",
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".component.\"javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.tlv.PermittedTaglibsTLV\".WeldInstantiator",
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".component.\"javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.tlv.ScriptFreeTLV\".START",
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".component.\"javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.tlv.ScriptFreeTLV\".WeldInstantiator",
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".component.\"org.jboss.weld.servlet.WeldInitialListener\".START",
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".component.\"org.jboss.weld.servlet.WeldInitialListener\".WeldInstantiator",
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".component.\"org.jboss.weld.servlet.WeldTerminalListener\".START",
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".component.\"org.jboss.weld.servlet.WeldTerminalListener\".WeldInstantiator",
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".deploymentCompleteService",
"jboss.deployment.unit.\"test.war\".jndiDependencyService",
"jboss.undertow.deployment.default-server.default-host./test",
"jboss.undertow.deployment.default-server.default-host./test.UndertowDeploymentInfoService"
],
"Services that may be the cause:" => [
"jboss.clustering.singleton.server.default",
"jboss.naming.context.java.jboss.DefaultJMSConnectionFactory"
]
}
}}}}}}}}}
13:11:40
java.lang.AssertionError:
{"WFLYDC0074: Operation failed or was rolled back on all servers. Server failures:" => {"server-group" => {"other-server-group" => {"host" => {"slave" => {"server-one" => {"WFLYCTL0062: Composite operation failed and was rolled back. Steps that failed:" => {"Operation step-1" => {
"WFLYCTL0180: Services with missing/unavailable dependencies" => ["jboss.naming.context.java.module.test.test.DefaultJMSConnectionFactory is missing [jboss.naming.context.java.jboss.DefaultJMSConnectionFactory]"],
{code}
> Deal with mixed-domain failures in the OpenJ9 jobs
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFLY-12649
> URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/WFLY-12649
> Project: WildFly
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: Management, Test Suite
> Reporter: Brian Stansberry
> Assignee: Brian Stansberry
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: OpenJ9
> Fix For: 19.0.0.Beta1, 19.0.0.Final
>
>
> The nightly CI jobs against OpenJ9 have 12 failures in the mixed-domain testsuite due to problems starting the embedded messaging broker on an EAP 7.0.0 Host.
> https://ci.wildfly.org/viewLog.html?buildId=170906&tab=buildResultsDiv&bu...
> I think this relates to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-444 and JBEAP-1887. The latter is resolved with a Fix Version of 7.0.2.CR1 but our mixed domain tests are not able to test against CPs.
> So task here is to work around this somehow.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)
4 years, 2 months
[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-2491) Reduce use of synchronized
by Bela Ban (Jira)
[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/JGRP-2491?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Bela Ban closed JGRP-2491.
--------------------------
Resolution: Won't Fix
This will be fixed by the Loom project (replacing synchronized with ReentrantLock intrinsically)
> Reduce use of synchronized
> --------------------------
>
> Key: JGRP-2491
> URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/JGRP-2491
> Project: JGroups
> Issue Type: Enhancement
> Reporter: Bela Ban
> Assignee: Bela Ban
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 5.0.0.Final
>
>
> The synchronized keyword fares badly with virtual threads (project Loom). Contrary to {{java.util.concurrent.lock.Lock}}, {{synchronized}} can still block. This might change in the future, but for now, we should replace all uses of {{synchronized}} with {{Lock.lock()/unlock().}}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)
4 years, 2 months
[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-2274) ASYM_ENCRYPT: deprecate sign_msgs
by Bela Ban (Jira)
[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/JGRP-2274?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin... ]
Bela Ban commented on JGRP-2274:
--------------------------------
[~nsawadsky] Perhaps support for this is enabled in more recent JDKs (I used 11)?
> ASYM_ENCRYPT: deprecate sign_msgs
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: JGRP-2274
> URL: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/JGRP-2274
> Project: JGroups
> Issue Type: Enhancement
> Reporter: Bela Ban
> Assignee: Bela Ban
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 4.0.12
>
>
> In {{ASYM_ENCRYPT}}, signing messages means that the checksum of an encrypted message is computed and used together with the secret key of the sender to sign the message. On the receiver side, the public key of the sender is used to validate the signature.
> However, this is redundant, as decryption of a message will fail if the contents have been changed.
> If needed, signing of messages can be done in a separate protocol.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.13.8#713008)
4 years, 2 months