[jboss-jira] [JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-1876) MERGE3 : Strange number and content of subgroups

[Bela Ban (JIRA)]

    [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1876?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13043247#comment-13043247 ] 

Bela Ban commented on JGRP-1876:
--------------------------------

{{MergeTest4.testJGRP_1876_Dan2()}} reproduces the issue described by Dan in his comment dated Jan 13:
* S: [S]
* T: [T]
* U,V: [U,V]

The merge leaders gets INFO messages from
* S: [S|10]
* T: [T|10]
* V: [U|10]

This results in a {{MergeView}} that excludes U:
* S: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
* T: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]
* U: [U|11] (2) [U, V]
* V: [T|12] (3) [T, S, V]

The next MergeView will correct this, but we should strive to provide the correct MergeView the first time around.


> 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}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.11#6341)