Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo >> mail # dev >> [DISCUSS] API changes to provide resource cleanup


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [DISCUSS] API changes to provide resource cleanup
I agree with Keith. Thanks for summarizing, Sean.

I also favor option #2 for all existing versions, up through 1.6.0.

For 1.7.0, I strongly favor a new client API that addresses lifecycle
management of connection resources directly in the API. Specifically,
I propose moving static connection state to a ConnectionResources
object that is Closeable and can be provided to an instance. For
backwards compatibility, the implementation of the current API can be
made to use a singleton instance of this object, rather than static
state. It follows then, that "The Hammer" solution (#2) would simply
be modified in its implementation to close this singleton instance,
for backwards compatibility with earlier iterations of "The Hammer".

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really like the summary of the discussion, very thorough and concise.  I
> am in favor of #2 for 1.4.5, 1.5.1, and 1.6.0.  Also I would be willing to
> do the revert work for close().
>
> If we go with option #2, what should we do for 1.7.0-SNAPSHOT?  If someone
> really wants to pursue adding close, we could leave things as is in
> 1.7.0-SNAPSHOT.  If no one is going to pursue it, then we should revert it
> in 1.7.0-SNAP rather than leave something thats partially done.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> Hey Folks!
>>
>> We need to come to some conclusions on what we're going to do for resource
>> clean up. I'll attempt to summarize the situation and various options. If I
>> missed something from our myriad of tickets and mailing list threads,
>> please bring it up.
>>
>> Brief Background:
>>
>> The existing client APIs presume that a large amount of global state will
>> persist for the duration of a JVM instance. This is at odds with lifecycle
>> management in application containers, where a JVM is very long lived and
>> user provided applications are stood up and torn down. We have reports of
>> this causing OOM on JBoss[1] and leaked threads on Tomcat[2].
>>
>> We have two possible solutions, both of which Jared Winick has kindly
>> verified solve the problem, as seen on JBoss.
>>
>> ----
>> = Proposed solution #1: Closeable Instance
>>
>> The first approach adds a .close method to Instance so that users can say
>> when they are done with a given instance. Internally, reference counting
>> determines when we tear down global resources.
>>
>> Advantages:
>>   * States via code where a client should do lifecycle management.
>>   * Allows shutting down just some of the resources used.
>>   * Is already in the code base.
>>
>> Disadvantages:
>>   * Since lifecycle is getting added post-hoc, we are more likely to have
>> maintenance issues as we find other side effects we hadn't considered, like
>> the multithreaded issue that already came up[3].
>>   * Changes Instance from representing static configuration to shared state
>>   * Doesn't work with the fluent style some of our APIs encourage.
>>   * closed semantics probably aren't consistently enforced (e.g. users
>> trying to use a BatchWriter that came from a now-closed instance should
>> fail)
>>
>> To finish, we'd need to
>>   * Verify multithreaded handling is done without too much of a performance
>> impact[3]
>>   * Finish making our internal use consistent with the lifecycle we're
>> telling others to use[4]
>>   * Possibly add tests to verify consistent enforcement of closing on
>> objects derived from Instance
>>
>> = Proposed solution #2: Global cleanup utility, aka The Hammer
>>
>> As a band-aid to allow for "unload resources" without making changes to the
>> API we instead provide a utility method that cleans up all global
>> resources.
>>
>> Advantages:
>>   * Doesn't change API or meaning for Instance
>>   * Can be used on older Accumulo deployments w/o patch/rebuild cycle
>>
>> Disadvantages:
>>   * Only allows all-or-nothing cleanup
>>   * Doesn't address our underlying lack of lifecycle
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB