Bug 851459 - WaitBeforeRemove property setting and real time differs greatly
WaitBeforeRemove property setting and real time differs greatly
Product: JBoss Enterprise Web Server 2
Classification: JBoss
Component: mod_cluster (Show other bugs)
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jean-frederic Clere
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2012-08-24 04:54 EDT by Radim Hatlapatka
Modified: 2012-09-19 11:12 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2012-09-19 11:12:10 EDT
Type: Bug
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Radim Hatlapatka 2012-08-24 04:54:46 EDT
Real time for forgetting worker node is about half of the time set in WaitBeforeRemove property

I am measuring time from stopping worker node (even remembering time it
took) till the time it disappears from mod_cluster manager console.
I stop server using normal clean shutdown and it takes for default
WaitBeforeRemove value arround 5s + 2 seconds for stopping worker node.
In case I set WaitBeforeRemove 20, it takes 10 + 2 seconds and in case I
set WaitBeforeRemove to 30 it takes 15 + 2 seconds 

This behaviour I have tested only with mod_cluster 1.2.1.Final and tomcat 6 (both as part of EWS 2.0) on RHEL 6
Comment 1 Jean-frederic Clere 2012-09-19 06:01:15 EDT
[Wed Sep 19 11:54:20 2012] [debug] mod_manager.c(2598): manager_handler REMOVE-APP (/NODE_COMMAND) processing: "JVMRoute=498bb1f0-00d9-3436-a341-7f012bc2e7ec

[Wed Sep 19 11:54:40 2012] [debug] mod_proxy_cluster.c(2252): remove_removed_node: 498bb1f0-00d9-3436-a341-7f012bc2e7ec cluster-prod-01

with WaitBeforeRemove 20 that looks OK.

I have tesed with 120 (2 minutes) it is working too.
Comment 2 Radim Hatlapatka 2012-09-19 11:12:10 EDT
I have found error in time measuring in my test, I tried it manually and fixed the error and now it behaves correctly => closing as this is not a bug, just mistake in test.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.