You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@zookeeper.apache.org by Pradeepa Kumar <cd...@gmail.com> on 2016/06/28 05:52:08 UTC

unexpected server response ZRUNTIMEINCONSISTENCY

Re-posting this query again as have not got this issue resolved.

Appreciate your comments on this query.

Hi Folks,


I am hitting an error in my C client code and below are the set of
operations I perform: 1. Zookeeper Client connected to Zookeeper server S1
and a new server S2 gets added. 2. monitor zookeeper server config at the
client and on change of server config, call zoo_set_server from the client
3. client can issue operations like zoo_get just after the call to
zoo_set_servers 4. I can see that the zookeeper thread logs connect to the
new server just after the zoo_get call 2016-04-11
03:46:50,655:1207(0xf26ffb40):ZOO_INFO@check_events@2345: initiated
connection to server [128.0.0.5:61728] 2016-04-11
03:46:50,658:1207(0xf26ffb40):ZOO_INFO@check_events@2397: session
establishment complete on server [128.0.0.5:61728],
sessionId=0x4000001852c000c, negotiated timeout=20000 5. Some times I find
errors like below: 2016-04-11
03:46:50,662:1207(0xf26ffb40):ZOO_ERROR@handle_socket_error_msg@2923:
Socket [128.0.0.5:61728] zk retcode=-2, errno=115(Operation now in
progress): unexpected server response: expected 0x570b82fa, but received
0x570b82f9 1. zoo_get returns (-2) indicating that ZRUNTIMEINCONSISTENCY<
http://zookeeper.sourcearchive.com/documentation/3.2.2plus-pdfsg3/zookeeper_8h_bb1a0a179f313b2e44ee92369c438a4c.html#bb1a0a179f313b2e44ee92369c438a4c9eabb281ab14c74db3aff9ab456fa7fe>
What is the issue here? should I be retry the operation zoo_get operation?
Or should I wait for the zoo_set_server to complete (like wait for the
connection establishment notification) Thanks,

Re: unexpected server response ZRUNTIMEINCONSISTENCY

Posted by Flavio Junqueira <fp...@apache.org>.
This is being discussed in ZOOKEEPER-2455, yes?

-Flavio

> On 06 Jul 2016, at 23:46, svk <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1. I have also observed this. I currently deal with it by retrying the
> operation when I get ZRUNTIMEINCONSISTENCY. If this is the recommended
> procedure, maybe we should update the documentation.
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> Shreyas Vinayakumar
> 
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Pradeepa Kumar <cd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Re-posting this query again as have not got this issue resolved.
>> 
>> Appreciate your comments on this query.
>> 
>> Hi Folks,
>> 
>> 
>> I am hitting an error in my C client code and below are the set of
>> operations I perform: 1. Zookeeper Client connected to Zookeeper server S1
>> and a new server S2 gets added. 2. monitor zookeeper server config at the
>> client and on change of server config, call zoo_set_server from the client
>> 3. client can issue operations like zoo_get just after the call to
>> zoo_set_servers 4. I can see that the zookeeper thread logs connect to the
>> new server just after the zoo_get call 2016-04-11
>> 03:46:50,655:1207(0xf26ffb40):ZOO_INFO@check_events@2345: initiated
>> connection to server [128.0.0.5:61728] 2016-04-11
>> 03:46:50,658:1207(0xf26ffb40):ZOO_INFO@check_events@2397: session
>> establishment complete on server [128.0.0.5:61728],
>> sessionId=0x4000001852c000c, negotiated timeout=20000 5. Some times I find
>> errors like below: 2016-04-11
>> 03:46:50,662:1207(0xf26ffb40):ZOO_ERROR@handle_socket_error_msg@2923:
>> Socket [128.0.0.5:61728] zk retcode=-2, errno=115(Operation now in
>> progress): unexpected server response: expected 0x570b82fa, but received
>> 0x570b82f9 1. zoo_get returns (-2) indicating that ZRUNTIMEINCONSISTENCY<
>> 
>> http://zookeeper.sourcearchive.com/documentation/3.2.2plus-pdfsg3/zookeeper_8h_bb1a0a179f313b2e44ee92369c438a4c.html#bb1a0a179f313b2e44ee92369c438a4c9eabb281ab14c74db3aff9ab456fa7fe
>>> 
>> What is the issue here? should I be retry the operation zoo_get operation?
>> Or should I wait for the zoo_set_server to complete (like wait for the
>> connection establishment notification) Thanks,
>> 


Re: unexpected server response ZRUNTIMEINCONSISTENCY

Posted by svk <sh...@gmail.com>.
+1. I have also observed this. I currently deal with it by retrying the
operation when I get ZRUNTIMEINCONSISTENCY. If this is the recommended
procedure, maybe we should update the documentation.

Thanks and regards,
Shreyas Vinayakumar

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Pradeepa Kumar <cd...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Re-posting this query again as have not got this issue resolved.
>
> Appreciate your comments on this query.
>
> Hi Folks,
>
>
> I am hitting an error in my C client code and below are the set of
> operations I perform: 1. Zookeeper Client connected to Zookeeper server S1
> and a new server S2 gets added. 2. monitor zookeeper server config at the
> client and on change of server config, call zoo_set_server from the client
> 3. client can issue operations like zoo_get just after the call to
> zoo_set_servers 4. I can see that the zookeeper thread logs connect to the
> new server just after the zoo_get call 2016-04-11
> 03:46:50,655:1207(0xf26ffb40):ZOO_INFO@check_events@2345: initiated
> connection to server [128.0.0.5:61728] 2016-04-11
> 03:46:50,658:1207(0xf26ffb40):ZOO_INFO@check_events@2397: session
> establishment complete on server [128.0.0.5:61728],
> sessionId=0x4000001852c000c, negotiated timeout=20000 5. Some times I find
> errors like below: 2016-04-11
> 03:46:50,662:1207(0xf26ffb40):ZOO_ERROR@handle_socket_error_msg@2923:
> Socket [128.0.0.5:61728] zk retcode=-2, errno=115(Operation now in
> progress): unexpected server response: expected 0x570b82fa, but received
> 0x570b82f9 1. zoo_get returns (-2) indicating that ZRUNTIMEINCONSISTENCY<
>
> http://zookeeper.sourcearchive.com/documentation/3.2.2plus-pdfsg3/zookeeper_8h_bb1a0a179f313b2e44ee92369c438a4c.html#bb1a0a179f313b2e44ee92369c438a4c9eabb281ab14c74db3aff9ab456fa7fe
> >
> What is the issue here? should I be retry the operation zoo_get operation?
> Or should I wait for the zoo_set_server to complete (like wait for the
> connection establishment notification) Thanks,
>