Re: store files - store_load

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alexander Malysh" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: store files - store_load -#- MailID:PAAA


> 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.
agree, which is why the following is best
>
>
> >
> > 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.

Yes, thats what I meant and did and works much better.


>
> > 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...

hmm,yeh but making a diff -u that will make sense to you is a bit of a
problem...after
doing custom stuff, and I tend to reformat the code in places I need to be
able to read and follow it.


>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
>
>