[jira] [Commented] (HBASE-15001) Thread Safety issues in ReplicationSinkManager and HBaseInterClusterReplicationEndpoint

["Ted Yu (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15001?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15062937#comment-15062937 ] 

Ted Yu commented on HBASE-15001:
--------------------------------

{code}
263	          LOG.warn("The number of edits replicated is different from the number received,"
264	              + " failing for now.");
{code}
Please note the two numbers in the above message so that the log is more useful for debugging.

Is it possible to reproduce, in a unit test, the race you outlined ?

Thanks

> Thread Safety issues in ReplicationSinkManager and HBaseInterClusterReplicationEndpoint
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-15001
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15001
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Replication
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.2.1
>            Reporter: Ashu Pachauri
>            Assignee: Ashu Pachauri
>            Priority: Critical
>         Attachments: HBASE-15001-V0.patch
>
>
> ReplicationSinkManager is not thread-safe. This can cause problems in HBaseInterClusterReplicationEndpoint,  when the walprovider is multiwal. 
> For example: 
> 1. When multiple threads report bad sinks, the sink list can be non-empty but report a negative size because the ArrayList itself is not thread-safe. 
> 2. HBaseInterClusterReplicationEndpoint depends on the number of sinks to batch edits for shipping. However, it's quite possible that the following code makes it assume that there are no batches to process (sink size is non-zero, but by the time we reach the "batching" part, sink size becomes zero.)
> {code}
> if (replicationSinkMgr.getSinks().size() == 0) {
>     return false;
> }
> ...
> int n = Math.min(Math.min(this.maxThreads, entries.size()/100+1),
>                replicationSinkMgr.getSinks().size());
> {code}
> This is very dangerous, because, (incorrectly) assuming no batches to process based on value of n, we can safely report that we replicated successfully, while we actually did not replicate anything. 
> The idea is to make all operations in ReplicationSinkManager thread-safe and do a verification on the size of replicated edits before we report success.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)