On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 09:15 -0500, Brian Stansberry wrote:
jean-frederic clere wrote:
> Paul Ferraro wrote:
>> Currently, the HAModClusterService (where httpd communication is
>> coordinated by an HA singleton) does not react to crashed/hung members.
>> Specifically, when the HA singleton gets a callback that the group
>> membership changes, it does not send any REMOVE-APP messages to httpd on
>> behalf of the member that just left. Currently, httpd will detect the
>> failure (via a disconnected socket) on its own and sets its internal
>> state accordingly, e.g. a STATUS message will return NOTOK.
>> The non-handling of dropped members is actually a good thing in the
>> event of a network partition, where communication between nodes is lost,
>> but communication between httpd and the nodes is unaffected. If we were
>> handling dropped members, we would have to handle the ugly scenario
>> described here:
>> Jean-Frederic: a few questions...
>> 1. Is it up to the AS to drive the recovery of a NOTOK node when it
>> becomes functional again?
>> In the case of a crashed member, fresh
>> CONFIG/ENABLE-APP messages will be sent upon node restart. In the case
>> of a re-merged network partition, no additional messages are sent. Is
>> the subsequent STATUS message (with a non-zero lbfactor) enough to
>> trigger the recovery of this node?
Good to know.
>> 2. Can httpd detect hung nodes? A hung node will not affect
>> connected state of the AJP/HTTP/S connector - it could only detect this
>> by sending data to the connector and timing out on the response.
> The hung node will be detected and marked as broken but the
> corresponding request(s) may be delayed or lost due to time-out.
How long does this take, say in a typical case where the hung node was
up and running with a pool of AJP connections open? Is it the 10 secs,
the default value of the "ping" property listed at
I think he's talking about "nodeTimeout".
Also, if a request is being handled by a hung node and the
HAModClusterService tells httpd to stop that node, the request will
fail, yes? It shouldn't just fail over, as it may have already caused
the transfer of my $1,000,000 to my secret account at UBS. Failing over
would cause transfer of a second $1,000,000 and sadly I don't have that
Not unlike those damn double-clickers...
>> And some questions for open discussion:
>> What does HAModClusterService really buy us over the normal
>> ModClusterService? Do the benefits outweigh the complexity?
>> * Maintains a uniform view of proxy status across each AS node
>> * Can detect and send STOP-APP/REMOVE-APP messages on behalf of
>> hung/crashed nodes (if httpd cannot already do this) (not yet
>> + Requires special handling of network partitions
>> * Potentially improve scalability by minimizing network traffic for
>> very large clusters.
Assume a near-term goal is to run a 150 node cluster with say 10 httpd
servers. Assume the background thread runs every 10 seconds. That comes
to 150 connections per second across the cluster being opened/closed to
handle STATUS. Each httpd server handles 15 connections per second.
With HAModClusterService the way it is now, you get the same, because
besides STATUS each node also checks its ability to communicate w/ each
httpd in order to validate its ability to become master. But let's
assume we add some complexity to allow that health check to become much
more infrequent. So ignore those ping checks. So, w/ HAModClusterService
you get 1 connection/sec being opened closed across the cluster for
status, 0.1 connection/sec per httpd. But the STATUS request sent
across each connection has a much bigger payload.
True, the STATUS request body is larger than the INFO request (no body),
but the resulting STATUS-RSP is significantly smaller than the
How significant is the cost of opening/closing all those
>> e.g. non-masters ping httpd less often
>> * Anything else?
1) Management?? You don't want to have to interact with every node to do
management tasks (e.g. disable app X on domain A to drain sessions so we
can shut down the domain.) A node having a complete view might allow
more sophisticated management operations. This is takes more thought
2) The more sophisticated case discussed on
, where a primary
partition approach is appropriate rather than letting minority
subpartitions continue to live. But TBH mod_cluster might not be the
right place to handle this. Probably more appropriate is to have
something associated with the webapp itself determine it is in a
minority partition and undeploy the webapp if so. Whether being in a
minority partition is inappropriate for a particular webapp is beyond
scope for mod_cluster.
I'd originally thought the HA version would add benefit to the load
balance factor calculation, but that was wrong-headed.
I would argue that there is some (albeit small) value to the load being
requested on each node at the same time. I would expect this to result
in slightly less load swinging than if individual nodes calculated their
load at different times, scattered across the status interval.
> Well I prefer the JAVA code deciding if a node is broken that
> really want to keep the complexity in httpd to minimum and the talk I
> had until now at the ApacheCon seems to show that is probably the best
> way to go.
Agreed that httpd should be as simple as possible. But to handle the
non-HAModClusterService case it will need to at least detect broken
connections and basic response timeouts, right? So depending on how long
it takes to detect hung nodes, httpd might be detecting them before
HAModClusterService. I'm thinking of 3 scenarios:
1) Node completely crashes. HAModClusterService will detect this almost
immediately; I'd think httpd would as well unless it just happened to
not have connections open.
2) Some condition that causes the channel used by HAModClusterService to
not process messages. This will lead to the node being suspected after
31.5 seconds with the default channel config. But httpd might detect a
timeout faster than that?
3) Some condition that causes all the JBoss Web threads to block but
doesn't impact the HAModClusterService channel. (QE's Radoslav Husar,
Bela and I are trying to diagnose such a case right now.) Only httpd
will detect this; JGroups will not. We could add some logic in JBoss Web
that would allow it to detect such a situation and then let
(HA)ModClusterService disable the node. But non-HA ModClusterService
could do that just as well as the HA version.
I imagine this is not uncommon, e.g. overloaded/deadlocked database
causing all application threads to wait.
Out of these 3 cases, HAModClusterService does a better job than
itself only in the #2 case, and there only if it takes httpd > 31.5 secs
to detect a hung response.
Although, for case #2, using the plain non-HA ModClusterService avoids
the problem entirely.
>> mod_cluster-dev mailing list
> mod_cluster-dev mailing list