Re: Third server not discovered by second server with LateralTCP

Hello Dieter.

  We look your post in nabble's forum about "Thirds erver not discovered by
second server with LateralTCP". We have the same problem but the solution
you gave (synchronized ( instances ) in method getInstances() ) not work to
us  =20

  Can you help us ?    We paste cache.ccf if you can see it.

# DEFAULT CACHE REGION

jcs.default=3DLTCP
jcs.default.cacheattributes=3Dorg.apache.jcs.engine.CompositeCacheAttribute=
s
jcs.default.cacheattributes.MaxObjects=3D1000
jcs.default.cacheattributes.MemoryCacheName=3Dorg.apache.jcs.engine.memory.=
lru.LRUMemoryCache
jcs.default.elementattributes.IsEternal=3Dtrue
#jcs.default.elementattributes.MaxLifeSeconds=3D21600
jcs.default.cacheattributes.UseMemoryShrinker=3Dfalse
jcs.default.cacheattributes.ShrinkerIntervalSeconds=3D60
jcs.default.cacheattributes.MaxMemoryIdleTimeSeconds=3D360000
jcs.default.elementattributes.IsSpool=3Dfalse
jcs.default.elementattributes.IsRemote=3Dfalse
jcs.default.elementattributes.IsLateral=3Dtrue


# PRE-DEFINED CACHE REGIONS

jcs.region.infocorCacheLateral=3DLTCP
jcs.region.infocorCacheLateral.cacheattributes=3Dorg.apache.jcs.engine.Comp=
ositeCacheAttributes
jcs.region.infocorCacheLateral.cacheattributes.MaxObjects=3D1000
jcs.region.infocorCacheLateral.cacheattributes.MemoryCacheName=3Dorg.apache=
.jcs.engine.memory.lru.LRUMemoryCache
jcs.region.infocorCacheLateral.elementattributes.IsEternal=3Dtrue
#jcs.region.infocorCacheLateral.elementattributes.MaxLifeSeconds=3D21600
jcs.region.infocorCacheLateral.cacheattributes.UseMemoryShrinker=3Dfalse
jcs.region.infocorCacheLateral.cacheattributes.ShrinkerIntervalSeconds=3D60
jcs.region.infocorCacheLateral.cacheattributes.MaxMemoryIdleTimeSeconds=3D3=
60000
jcs.region.infocorCacheLateral.elementattributes.IsSpool=3Dfalse
jcs.region.infocorCacheLateral.elementattributes.IsRemote=3Dfalse
jcs.region.infocorCacheLateral.elementattributes.IsLateral=3Dtrue

# AVAILABLE AUXILIARY CACHES

jcs.auxiliary.LTCP=3Dorg.apache.jcs.auxiliary.lateral.socket.tcp.LateralTCP=
CacheFactory
jcs.auxiliary.LTCP.attributes=3Dorg.apache.jcs.auxiliary.lateral.socket.tcp=
.TCPLateralCacheAttributes
jcs.auxiliary.LTCP.attributes.TransmissionTypeName=3DTCP
jcs.auxiliary.LTCP.attributes.TcpServers=3D192.168.1.176:41000,192.168.196:=
41000
jcs.auxiliary.LTCP.attributes.TcpListenerPort=3D41100
jcs.auxiliary.LTCP.attributes.UdpDiscoveryEnabled=3Dfalse
jcs.auxiliary.LTCP.attributes.Receive=3Dtrue
jcs.auxiliary.LTCP.attributes.AllowGet=3Dtrue
jcs.auxiliary.LTCP.attributes.IssueRemoveOnPut=3Dtrue
jcs.auxiliary.LTCP.attributes.FilterRemoveByHashCode=3Dfalse
jcs.auxiliary.LTCP.attributes.PutOnlyMode=3Dfalse


   Regards and thank you =20









Dieter Laufkoetter wrote:
>=20
> Hello,
>=20
> we use an net with 3 servers and use the LateralTCP protocol.
> We don=C2=B4t use musticast (jcs.auxiliary.LTCP.attributes.UdpDiscoveryEn=
abled
> =3D false).
> Each server is configured the other two servers with
> jcs.auxiliary.LTCP.attributes.TcpServers.
>=20
> At first we start server 1.
> Server 1 tries to connect to server 2 and 3.
>=20
> Then we start server 2.
> Server 2 connects to server 1 but does not try to connect to server 3.
> Server 1 connects to server 2
>=20
> Then we start server 3.
> Server 3 connects to server 1 and 2.
> Server 1 connects to server 3.
>=20
> The error:
> Server 2 never tries to connect to server 3 and so the puts of server 2
> never reach server 3.
>=20
> This error occurs with 3 servers on 3 nodes and also with 3 servers on th=
e
> same node.
>=20
>=20
> we found a solution for the problem:
> In the class
> org.apache.jcs.auxiliary.lateral.socket.tcp.LateralTCPCacheManager the Ma=
p
> "instances" is synchronised at getInstance() but not at getInstances(). S=
o
> an inconsistent value of instances may be got by call of getInstances().
> The following change of getInstances() fixes the problem:
>=20
>     public Map getInstances()
>     {
>         synchronized ( instances ) {
>             return instances;
>         }
>     }
>=20
> We use new and fast machines, maybe that older and slower machines does
> not produce this synchronisation error.
>=20
> best regards,
>=20
> Dieter
>=20
>=20
>=20
:-((:-((
--=20
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Third-server-not-discov=
ered-by-second-server-with-LateralTCP-tp13855881p24405813.html
Sent from the JCS - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.