Thanks all guys. I got the ideas Regards Ning Yao 2015-03-17 21:58 GMT+08:00 Gregory Farnum <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Ning Yao wrote: >>> 2015-03-16 22:06 GMT+08:00 Haomai Wang <haomaiwang@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Xinze Chi <xmdxcxz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >> How to process the write request in primary? >>> >> >>> >> Thanks. >>> >> >>> >> 2015-03-16 22:01 GMT+08:00 Haomai Wang <haomaiwang@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> AFAR Pipe and AsyncConnection both will mark self fault and shutdown >>> >>> socket and peer will detect this reset. So each side has chance to >>> >>> rebuild the session. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Xinze Chi <xmdxcxz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> Such as, Client send write request to osd.0 (primary), osd.0 send >>> >>>> MOSDSubOp to osd.1 and osd.2 >>> >>>> >>> >>>> osd.1 send reply to osd.0 (primary), but accident happened: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> 1. decode_message crc error when decode reply msg >>> >>>> or >>> >>>> 2. the reply msg is lost when send to osd.0, so osd.0 do not receive replay msg >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Could anyone tell me what is the behavior if osd.0 (primary)? >>> >>>> >>> > >>> > osd.0 and osd.1 both will try to reconnect peer side, and the lost >>> > message will be resend to osd.0 from osd.1 >>> So I wonder if different routing path delays the arrival of one >>> message, then the in_seq would be setting ahead, then based on the >>> logic. Later, if the delaying message arrives, it will be dropping and >>> discard. Thus, if it is just a sub_op reply message as xinze >>> describes, how ceph works after that? It seems repop of the write Op >>> will be waiting infinite times until the osd restart? >> >> These sorts of scenarios are why src/msg/simple/Pipe.cc (an in particular, >> accept()) is not so simple. The case you describe is >> >> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/src/msg/simple/Pipe.cc#L492 >> or >> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/src/msg/simple/Pipe.cc#L492 >> >> In other words, this is all masked by the Messenger layer so that the >> higher layers (OSD.cc etc) see a single, ordered, reliable stream of >> messages and all of the failure/retry/reconnect logic is hidden. > > Just to be clear, that's the original described case of reconnecting. > The different routing paths stuff are all handled by TCP underneath > us, which is one of the reasons we use it. ;) > -Greg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
