Re: store files - store_load

Hi,

fred wrote:
> Hi devel groupers
>  
>  
> I have been testing with a few fail scenarios lately, and the way the 
> code is currently doesn;t
> quite do it for me, strange because much of the way its coded has been 
> like that for quite some time......
>  
> 1.) Firstly during init_bearerbox, the store_init - which starts up the 
> store_dumper thread,
> which has a tendency to run the store_dump() and thus do_dump and rename 
> the say
> "kannel.store" to "kannel.store.bak"
> and the new store is renamed to "kannel.store"

you are right, it's a race condition here (but unfortunately not only 
one in store-file support)...

>  
> 2.) now the store_load() is run, the "kannel.store" now read is 
> typically 0 length
>   I have actually changed the code to like
>    if (store_file != NULL && octstr_len(store_file)!=0)
>   info(0, "Loading store file `%s'", octstr_get_cstr(filename));
>     else {
>   store_file = octstr_read_file(octstr_get_cstr(newfile));
> so it gets to "kannel.store.bak" and loads these messages,

it's workaround but not properly fix.


>  
> 3.) however, rationally I think the order of how its happening is all 
> wrong, and would rather have
> store_load as deterministically being the first thing to run which is 
> how i am changing it to.
>  

the order is not wrong. Only thing that I would change, is: start dumper 
thread after store_load completed, means at the and of store_load function.

> 4.) theres a few other things i'm going to say about message 
> acknowledgement...but I'll make that another subject
> ITNTDF

hmm, interesting to hear about...

>  
> I would like to know what current scenario of recovery the existing code 
> has  been tested for..??? anyone?
>  

it was tested for most cases but it's not bug free! I personally know 
some strange race conditions within store-file support that not too hard 
to fix and will be fixed as soon I have time for it hopefully by the end 
of this week :-) In the meantime you could test my new store spool 
replacement that was posted to this list.

> Anyway.......I written this stuff here so you can comment on what I 
> said......I changed stuff anyway for our version........

hmm, it's open source if you still didn't get it... so patch is welcome...

Thanks,
Alex

>  
>  
> Cheers
>  
>