Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

API files command is not working properly, traceback to functionLibrary unpack error #156

Open
edaniszewski opened this issue Dec 4, 2013 · 6 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@edaniszewski
Copy link
Contributor

Traceback:

  edaniszewski@BCDL52252:~/gfsmaster/GFS$ python client.py files
  10
  Traceback (most recent call last):
    File "client.py", line 10, in <module>
      API.fileList()
    File "/home/edaniszewski/gfsmaster/GFS/API.py", line 458, in fileList
      data = fL.recv(m)
    File "/home/edaniszewski/gfsmaster/GFS/functionLibrary.py", line 136, in recv
      msgLen = packer.unpack(connection.recv(4))[0]
  struct.error: unpack requires a string argument of length 4

Other commands I have tried seem to work, but for whatever reason, its not allowing me to execute the files command. It looks like it originates in the functionLibrary recv function, something to do with the structs?

@ghost ghost assigned SisterMystery Dec 4, 2013
@edaniszewski
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm not sure what is up with this issue, but after restarting a few components, it seems to work now.. definitely a Heisenbug.

@Berrescuda
Copy link
Contributor

This bug has proven difficult to replicate, but the system is working, so I'm obviously moving this to 1.1

@edaniszewski
Copy link
Contributor Author

Makes sense! In my down time between test cycles, I think I might know how to replicate it, but I haven't tested it out yet since tests are running so any chance of destabilizing the system would suck.

According to Rohail, that error shows up when a 0 or null is sent, so that narrows down the behavior we are looking for a little.

@edaniszewski
Copy link
Contributor Author

This same error came up a few times when I was running tests also. I haven't had this error show up from an individual command since I raised the issue, but it seems that under heavier loads, it can surface again, so if we want this to be a viable, scalable system, we should track down the origin of this error.

@rohailaltaf
Copy link
Contributor

Can you make sure the filelist command isn't returning duplicates?

-Rohail Altaf

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Erick Daniszewski
[email protected] wrote:

This same error came up a few times when I was running tests also. I haven't had this error show up from an individual command since I raised the issue, but it seems that under heavier loads, it can surface again, so if we want this to be a viable, scalable system, we should track down the origin of this error.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#156 (comment)

@edaniszewski
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't know if that pertains to this issue, I raised one just now relating to it, and yes, I intend to. I do not want to simply filter out duplicates in the filelist command because while that would return the proper values, the values within the database would still have the duplicates. Instead of filtering out duplicates, I will find how the duplicates get in there and fix that, which should fix that issue ( #160 )

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants