Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Test: Randomize netty worker and connection parameters #6635

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

kimchy
Copy link
Member

@kimchy kimchy commented Jun 27, 2014

Try and push our system to a state where there is only a single worker, trying to expose potential deadlocks when we by mistake execute blocking operations on the worker thread

Try and push our system to a state where there is only a single worker, trying to expose potential deadlocks when we by mistake execute blocking operations on the worker thread
closes elastic#6635
@drewr
Copy link
Contributor

drewr commented Jun 27, 2014

LGTM FWIW 😋


// randomize netty settings
if (random.nextBoolean()) {
builder.put(NettyTransport.WORKER_COUNT, random.nextInt(3) + 1);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can we go higher here? I mean if folks can set this they might go and use a large number? If that is dangerous we might need to validate the input and throw an exception?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we could, the default is num_processors * 2, which happens when nextBoolean is false. I wanted to try and be more aggressive when it is enabled. I think this values are good.

regarding the default, I am not sure what a good protection here is. We could protect from someone setting it to 500, or 10 times the number of processors, but I don't think it will be that effective (besides the fact that its a pretty internal and advance setting).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok fair enough...

@s1monw s1monw removed the review label Jun 27, 2014
@kimchy kimchy added the review label Jun 27, 2014
@areek areek assigned rjernst and unassigned rjernst Jun 29, 2014
@s1monw
Copy link
Contributor

s1monw commented Jun 30, 2014

LGTM

@kimchy kimchy closed this in c9ff9a6 Jun 30, 2014
kimchy added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 30, 2014
Try and push our system to a state where there is only a single worker, trying to expose potential deadlocks when we by mistake execute blocking operations on the worker thread
closes #6635
@kimchy kimchy added enhancement and removed review labels Jun 30, 2014
@kimchy kimchy deleted the randomize_netty_worker branch June 30, 2014 12:58
@clintongormley clintongormley changed the title [TEST] Randomize netty worker and connection parameters Test: Randomize netty worker and connection parameters Jul 16, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
>test Issues or PRs that are addressing/adding tests v1.3.0 v2.0.0-beta1
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants