glassfish
  1. glassfish
  2. GLASSFISH-15424

[BigApps] [STRESS] ~17 occurences of "EOFException" warnings coming from JMS

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Reopened
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: 3.1_b34
    • Fix Version/s: 4.0.1
    • Component/s: jms
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      See parent issue 15423 for details of the BigApps run that causes this issue to appear in the server logs. A server log that shows the issue has been attached.

      1. eof-issue.log
        1.92 MB
        varunrupela
      2. server.log-instance101-24x1-gf-b37
        30 kB
        varunrupela

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          Satish Kumar added a comment -

          This is a bug in MQ. See http://java.net/jira/browse/MQ-72 for the corresponding MQ issue. Amy Kang is currently working on it and based on her feedback, a fix for this issue will be a part of the next MQ integration ...

          Show
          Satish Kumar added a comment - This is a bug in MQ. See http://java.net/jira/browse/MQ-72 for the corresponding MQ issue. Amy Kang is currently working on it and based on her feedback, a fix for this issue will be a part of the next MQ integration ...
          Hide
          varunrupela added a comment -

          Satish,

          This is a different issue from the MQ-72 issue. The log is attached to the issue. We need to check on the cause for the log.

          Show
          varunrupela added a comment - Satish, This is a different issue from the MQ-72 issue. The log is attached to the issue. We need to check on the cause for the log.
          Hide
          Satish Kumar added a comment -

          As I had mentioned in my earlier comment, I suspect this issue may be caused due to http://java.net/jira/browse/MQ-72.

          Lowering the priority of this issue to Minor as discussed with Varun. We will need to have a re-look at this once MQ-72 is fixed and then decide if any further action is required here or if we can close this issue.

          Show
          Satish Kumar added a comment - As I had mentioned in my earlier comment, I suspect this issue may be caused due to http://java.net/jira/browse/MQ-72 . Lowering the priority of this issue to Minor as discussed with Varun. We will need to have a re-look at this once MQ-72 is fixed and then decide if any further action is required here or if we can close this issue.
          Hide
          Satish Kumar added a comment -

          Bumping-up the priority to Major based on Nazrul's feedback.

          We plan to leave this issue open until the fix for MQ 72 has been integrated and the stress tests have been run again and observe if the exceptions are reappearing in the new test run.

          Show
          Satish Kumar added a comment - Bumping-up the priority to Major based on Nazrul's feedback. We plan to leave this issue open until the fix for MQ 72 has been integrated and the stress tests have been run again and observe if the exceptions are reappearing in the new test run.
          Hide
          Nazrul added a comment -

          Please confirm if MQ-72 resolved this problem.

          Show
          Nazrul added a comment - Please confirm if MQ-72 resolved this problem.
          Hide
          varunrupela added a comment -

          The issue continues to exist in build 37.

          Show
          varunrupela added a comment - The issue continues to exist in build 37.
          Hide
          varunrupela added a comment -

          Added one of the instance's server log after a 24x1 run of the same scenario.

          Show
          varunrupela added a comment - Added one of the instance's server log after a 24x1 run of the same scenario.
          Hide
          Satish Kumar added a comment -

          Assigning this issue to Nigel as per our discussion this evening...

          Show
          Satish Kumar added a comment - Assigning this issue to Nigel as per our discussion this evening...
          Hide
          Nigel Deakin added a comment -

          These messages

          [#|2011-01-13T11:14:06.600+0530|WARNING|glassfish3.1|javax.jms|_ThreadID=29;_ThreadName=Thread-1;|[I500]: Caught JVM Exception: java.io.EOFException: Trying to read 72 bytes. Already read 0 bytes.|#]

          are warning messages. No errors or other messages were seen and there are no reports of the application behaving unexpectedly other than these messages.

          Other users have reported receiving these messages periodically in earlier versions of MQ. There is a discussion here:
          http://markmail.org/message/hh2ejjuxp5mo6njp#query:+page:1+mid:rumu3mg7unqbgm25+state:results
          to which MQ team members responded.

          This warning message is logged by the MQ client thread that is reading messages from a socket connected to the broker. (Note that even though the broker is embedded, since the broker is clustered, the client uses TCP to connect to the broker). The exception suggests that the client had received a "zero-length packet" from the broker. This message is often seen when the broker has failed, though this is not the case here. In that email discussion the MQ technical lead speculates that it is "probably a side effect of destination limits or TTL" and suggests that if there are no other problems the messages can be ignored.

          Note that after this exception has been logged the client will attempt to recover the connection and carry on. This appears to have been the case here since no further messages were logged.

          This is just a warning message, and is logged as such. Arguably GlassFish should never log warnings, but to suppress it might cause useful information to be lost if there are other problems. So it is proposed to close this bug as "not being a bug".

          Show
          Nigel Deakin added a comment - These messages [#|2011-01-13T11:14:06.600+0530|WARNING|glassfish3.1|javax.jms|_ThreadID=29;_ThreadName=Thread-1;| [I500] : Caught JVM Exception: java.io.EOFException: Trying to read 72 bytes. Already read 0 bytes.|#] are warning messages. No errors or other messages were seen and there are no reports of the application behaving unexpectedly other than these messages. Other users have reported receiving these messages periodically in earlier versions of MQ. There is a discussion here: http://markmail.org/message/hh2ejjuxp5mo6njp#query:+page:1+mid:rumu3mg7unqbgm25+state:results to which MQ team members responded. This warning message is logged by the MQ client thread that is reading messages from a socket connected to the broker. (Note that even though the broker is embedded, since the broker is clustered, the client uses TCP to connect to the broker). The exception suggests that the client had received a "zero-length packet" from the broker. This message is often seen when the broker has failed, though this is not the case here. In that email discussion the MQ technical lead speculates that it is "probably a side effect of destination limits or TTL" and suggests that if there are no other problems the messages can be ignored. Note that after this exception has been logged the client will attempt to recover the connection and carry on. This appears to have been the case here since no further messages were logged. This is just a warning message, and is logged as such. Arguably GlassFish should never log warnings, but to suppress it might cause useful information to be lost if there are other problems. So it is proposed to close this bug as "not being a bug".
          Hide
          varunrupela added a comment -

          Based on the analysis, the issue can be waived for GF 3.1. The issue should remain open as it appears in GF build 37 and as the MQ team will fix it in the long-term. It is useful to keep this issue open as opposed to creating a new one, since it contains quite some information around the bug.

          Show
          varunrupela added a comment - Based on the analysis, the issue can be waived for GF 3.1. The issue should remain open as it appears in GF build 37 and as the MQ team will fix it in the long-term. It is useful to keep this issue open as opposed to creating a new one, since it contains quite some information around the bug.
          Hide
          Nigel Deakin added a comment -

          Adding 3_1-exclude 3_1-release-notes tags. Note that this issue now only concerns the EOFExceptions and no other messages.

          The release note should mention that very occasionally WARNING messages "java.io.EOFException: Trying to read 72 bytes. Already read 0 bytes" may be observed in the server log. If no other messages or exceptions are logged at the same time in either the server or broker logs these messages may be ignored.

          Show
          Nigel Deakin added a comment - Adding 3_1-exclude 3_1-release-notes tags. Note that this issue now only concerns the EOFExceptions and no other messages. The release note should mention that very occasionally WARNING messages "java.io.EOFException: Trying to read 72 bytes. Already read 0 bytes" may be observed in the server log. If no other messages or exceptions are logged at the same time in either the server or broker logs these messages may be ignored.
          Hide
          varunrupela added a comment -

          set the target release

          Show
          varunrupela added a comment - set the target release
          Hide
          easarina added a comment -

          Was used b38 01/14. richAccess + SSL stress test on Win 2008 machines. Saw multiple "java.io.EOFException: Trying to read 72 bytes. Already read 0 bytes" warnings in server.log files. Was used jdk 1.6.0_23, 64 bit.

          Show
          easarina added a comment - Was used b38 01/14. richAccess + SSL stress test on Win 2008 machines. Saw multiple "java.io.EOFException: Trying to read 72 bytes. Already read 0 bytes" warnings in server.log files. Was used jdk 1.6.0_23, 64 bit.
          Hide
          Nigel Deakin added a comment -

          Updated summary to make it clear that it relates to warning messages, not exceptions.

          Show
          Nigel Deakin added a comment - Updated summary to make it clear that it relates to warning messages, not exceptions.
          Hide
          Scott Fordin added a comment -

          Need more info to add issue to 3.1 Release Notes. Is a release note still necessary?

          Show
          Scott Fordin added a comment - Need more info to add issue to 3.1 Release Notes. Is a release note still necessary?
          Hide
          Nigel Deakin added a comment -

          Please add the following text (which I gave in my comment on 17 Jan) to the release note:

          Issue 15424: Very occasionally WARNING messages "java.io.EOFException: Trying to read 72 bytes. Already read 0 bytes" may be observed in the server log. If no other messages or exceptions are logged at the same time in either the server or broker logs these messages may be ignored.

          Nigel

          Show
          Nigel Deakin added a comment - Please add the following text (which I gave in my comment on 17 Jan) to the release note: Issue 15424: Very occasionally WARNING messages "java.io.EOFException: Trying to read 72 bytes. Already read 0 bytes" may be observed in the server log. If no other messages or exceptions are logged at the same time in either the server or broker logs these messages may be ignored. Nigel
          Hide
          Scott Fordin added a comment -

          Added issue to 3.1 Release Notes.

          Show
          Scott Fordin added a comment - Added issue to 3.1 Release Notes.
          Hide
          Nigel Deakin added a comment -

          Excluding from 3.1.2 for the same reason it was excluded from 3.1.1. It should continue to be mentioned in the release note.

          Show
          Nigel Deakin added a comment - Excluding from 3.1.2 for the same reason it was excluded from 3.1.1. It should continue to be mentioned in the release note.
          Hide
          Rebecca Parks added a comment -

          If it's in the 3.1.1 Release Notes, it's carried over to 3.1.2 unless it's fixed in 3.1.2. There's no need to flag it for 3.1.2.

          Show
          Rebecca Parks added a comment - If it's in the 3.1.1 Release Notes, it's carried over to 3.1.2 unless it's fixed in 3.1.2. There's no need to flag it for 3.1.2.
          Hide
          Nigel Deakin added a comment -

          In accordance with the project triage guidelines this is not needed for 4.0 and so has been deferred until 4.0.1. Setting "fix version" accordingly.

          Show
          Nigel Deakin added a comment - In accordance with the project triage guidelines this is not needed for 4.0 and so has been deferred until 4.0.1. Setting "fix version" accordingly.

            People

            • Assignee:
              Nigel Deakin
              Reporter:
              varunrupela
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              1 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Due:
                Created:
                Updated: