]
Bela Ban commented on JGRP-1876:
--------------------------------
So I tried both Radim's {{SplitMergeTest}} and Karim's {{MergeTest4}}. They both
passed.
I think we're discussing too many different aspects of MERGE3 on this issue, so
I'll close it as the main issue (incorrect subgroups) seems to have been fixed by my
changes and Karim's {{clear()}} at the start of {{MergeTask}}.
If Karim's issue keeps popping up, then please create a new issue. Ditto for
Radim's issue. Radim: your test passed (10 splits and subsequent merges) a few times.
MERGE3 : Strange number and content of subgroups
------------------------------------------------
Key: JGRP-1876
URL:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1876
Project: JGroups
Issue Type: Bug
Affects Versions: 3.4.2
Reporter: Karim AMMOUS
Assignee: Bela Ban
Fix For: 3.6.3
Attachments: 4Subgroups.zip, ChannelCreator.java, DkeJgrpAddress.java,
JGRP-1876-1.pdf, karim-logs-files.zip, MergeTest4.java, MergeViewWith210Subgroups.log,
SplitMergeTest.java, views.txt
Using JGroups 3.4.2, a split occurred and a merge was processed successfully but number
of subgroups is wrong (210 instead of 2).
The final mergeView is correct and contains 210 members.
Here is an extract of subviews:
{code}
INFO | Incoming-18,cluster,term-ETJ101697729-31726:host:192.168.56.6:1:CL(GROUP01)[F] |
[MyMembershipListener.java:126] | (middleware) | MergeView view ID =
[serv-ZM2BU35940-58033:vt-14:192.168.55.55:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|172]
210 subgroups
[....
[term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1)
[term-ETJ104215245-11092:host:192.168.56.72:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
[term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1)
[serv-ZM2BU38960-6907:asb:192.168.55.52:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
[term-ETJ101697729-31726:host:192.168.56.6:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|171] (1)
[term-ETJ101697729-31726:host:192.168.56.6:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
[term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1)
[serv-ZM2BU47533-55240:vt-14:192.168.55.57:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
[term-ETJ100691812-36873:host:192.168.56.16:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]|170] (1)
[serv-ZM2BU35943-49435:asb:192.168.55.51:1:CL(GROUP01)[F]]
....]
{code}
II wasn't able to reproduce that with a simple program. But I observed that merge was
preceded by an ifdown/ifup on host 192.168.56.6. That member lost all others members, but
it still present in their view.
Example:
{code}
{A, B, C} => {A, B, C} and {C} => {A, B, C}
{code}