[Spread-users] spread delay problem

[Adrian Revill]

Hi John,

Thx for the quick reply.
When i was looking at the logs i could see the token being requested and 
then sent, so in general i think the hurry request is working, maybe 
just ocasionaly its getting lost.
So the hurry request is sent via udp not tcp?

Also why the 2 following contiguous ports? does spread use them?

regards Adrian

John Lane Schultz wrote:
> Adrian,
>
> It does sound like there is an issue in your setup for some reason with
> getting the leader to give up the token.  Right now, if user traffic is not
> being sent, then the token does not circulate continuously to minimize
> bandwidth usage.  After some number of circulations with no user caused
> sends and no retransmissions requested, then the leader will hold on to the
> token and only circulate it periodically (Hurry_timeout) for testing
> connectivity.
>
> There is a mechanism by which a non-leader can request token circulation if
> it isn't already circulating and they have user data to send.  It could very
> well be that this mechanism isn't working in your setup for some reason,
> which is what Mike Perik was saying.  Make sure that all your daemons can
> send UDP point to point to one another on the configured ports, plus the
> following 2 contiguous ports (e.g. - 4800, 4801, 4802).
>
> Here's a tweak that might mask this issue for you.  In protocol.c in the
> function To_hold_token() around line 1277, there is a check on the
> Token_counter.  Right now it checks if it is greater than 1, then it holds
> the token.  This means if the token circulates with no new user msgs and no
> retransmissions requested then after 1 such circulation the leader will
> swallow it and only send it out again if explicitly requested or when the
> Hurry_timeout expires.
>
> You can change the check to a much larger number (e.g. - 10,000).  This
> means that the token will continue circulating as fast as possible even when
> there doesn't seem to be any activity for X full circulations.  This uses up
> bandwidth, but if your system is decently active, then it may fully mask the
> issue for you.
>
> If you don't mind the bandwidth of the token always circulating, you could
> use a really big number like 2 billion or something.  Then you should only
> see this issue if the token really is lost, which will cause a Hurry_timeout
> delay.
>
> Cheers!
>
> ---
> John Lane Schultz
> Spread Concepts LLC
> Phn: 443 838 2200 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Revill [mailto:adrian.revill at shazamteam.com] 
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 9:20 AM
> To: John Lane Schultz
> Cc: spread-users at lists.spread.org
> Subject: Re: [Spread-users] spread delay problem
>
> Hi John,
>
> I have tried the Hurry_timeout at 100ms and the pauses have now gone to 
> 100ms. To help me tune the value, is there any way i can see the actual 
> time it takes for a token to rotate?
>
> An odd thing though, before i tried the lower time-out, i re-ran my 
> tests, but forgot to remove the PROTOCOL logging. All the pauses changed 
> to approx 300ms. As soon as i turned off the logging, they went back to 2s
>
>
>
> John Lane Schultz wrote:
>   
>> It definitely sounds like you are losing the token.  You can use spmonitor
>> to connect to the daemons and see what kind of losses they have.  You can
>> also lower the Hurry_timeout, set at the top of membership.c, to reduce
>>     
> how
>   
>> long the pauses from a loss of token take.  On a LAN you could try
>>     
> something
>   
>> like 10-100ms depending on the size of your configuration (bigger ->
>> longer).
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> ---
>> John Lane Schultz
>> Spread Concepts LLC
>> Phn: 443 838 2200 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: spread-users-bounces at lists.spread.org
>> [mailto:spread-users-bounces at lists.spread.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Revill
>> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:39 AM
>> To: spread-users at lists.spread.org
>> Subject: [Spread-users] spread delay problem
>>
>> I found a similar problem to mine on these lists 
>> http://lists.spread.org/pipermail/spread-users/2004-December/002367.html
>>
>> Did anyone ever get a solution?
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spread-users mailing list
>> Spread-users at lists.spread.org
>> http://lists.spread.org/mailman/listinfo/spread-users
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>   
>>     
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
> ______________________________________________________________________
>   

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________