Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Zookeeper >> mail # dev >> Input on a change

Copy link to this message
Re: Input on a change
On 04/13/2012 01:19 PM, Michi Mutsuzaki wrote:
> I agree with both Scott's and Ryan's points. I think it makes to:
> 1. Make this behavior configurable (with default being "turned off") to preserve backward compatibility.
> 2. Re-throw the exception instead of exiting with System.exit(1) so that users can use flags like -XX:+HeapDumpOnOutOfMemoryError.

I don't think re-throwing exceptions from an uncaught exception handler
is an option:

" Any exception thrown by this method will be ignored by the Java
Virtual Machine."

> --Michi
> ________________________________________
> From: Scott Fines [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 8:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Input on a change
> On some JVMs (the HotSpot for sure, but maybe others too?) there's a JVM
> for performing actions on OutOfMemoryErrors (-XX:OnOutOfMemoryError="<cmd
> args>, -XX:+HeapDumpOnOutOfMemoryError and maybe some others that I can't
> remember off the top of my head). Will these triggers still be fired, or
> will the catch-all prevent them?
> I'm still +1 for the change no matter what, but it's probably a good idea
> to mention that in the docs if they don't work.
> Scott
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Camille Fournier<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> I'm trying to evaluate a patch that Jeremy Stribling has submitted, and I'd
>> like some feedback from the user base on it.
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1442
>> The current behavior of ZK when we get an uncaught exception is to log it
>> and try to move on. This is arguably not the right thing to do, and will
>> possibly cause ZK to limp along with a bad VM (say, in an OOM state) for
>> longer than it should.
>> The patch proposes that when we get an instance of java.lang.Error, we
>> should do a system.exit to fast-fail the process. With the possible
>> exception of ThreadDeath (which may or may not be an unrecoverable system
>> state depending on the thread), I think this makes sense, but I would like
>> to hear from others if they have an opinion. I think it's better to kill
>> the process and let your monitoring services detect process death (and thus
>> restart) than possibly linger unresponsive for a while, are there scenarios
>> that we're missing where this error can occur and you wouldn't want the
>> process killed?
>> Thanks for your feedback,
>> Camille