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

STORM-4104 Fix Pacemaker server stability issues #3739

Merged

Conversation

Scomocouk
Copy link

What is the purpose of the change

Fixes STORM-4104 to improve the stability of Pacemaker server (and Netty Server in Workers) bringing it closer to the stability it had in Storm1. This is done by changing the behaviour of Utils.handleUncaughtException to also swallow exceptions derived from those in the supplied ALLOWED_EXCEPTIONS list instead of only the exact exceptions defined in there (i.e. instead of only 'swallowing' IOException, this change will allow SocketException (derived from IOException) to also be 'swallowed')

How was the change tested

Before this change it is easy to see Pacemaker server shut down when simply killing a topology:
2024-11-06 15:21:13.251 [o.a.s.m.n.StormServerHandler] ERROR: server errors in handling the request from /10.44.19.106:59691
java.net.SocketException: Connection reset at sun.nio.ch.SocketChannelImpl.throwConnectionReset(SocketChannelImpl.java:401) ~[?:?]
<...snip...>
2024-11-06 15:21:13.270 [o.a.s.m.n.StormServerHandler] INFO: Received error in netty thread.. terminating server...

With this fix the Pacemaker server now logs that a SocketException was received but that it is 'swallowing' it and pacemaker server continues to run:
2024-11-06 16:19:46.860 [o.a.s.u.Utils] INFO: Swallowing class java.net.SocketException java.net.SocketException: Connection reset

Also added unit tests for the new behaviour of Utils.handleUncaughtException

@rzo1 rzo1 requested review from jnioche, reiabreu and rzo1 November 8, 2024 07:19
@rzo1 rzo1 merged commit e3690f1 into apache:master Nov 11, 2024
18 checks passed
@rzo1
Copy link
Contributor

rzo1 commented Nov 11, 2024

Thanks @Scomocouk

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants