[erlang-questions] Process surviving disconnect

[Vincenzo Maggio]

Mmm, sorry but I don't grasp it: shouldn't bob write 'Alice died of no connection' on bob's node, which is in fact well alive?

> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:25:37 -0600
> From: erlang@REDACTED
> To: maggio.vincenzo@REDACTED
> CC: erlang-questions@REDACTED
> Subject: RE: [erlang-questions] Process surviving disconnect
> 
>  Mystery solved: no erlang bug but a brain bug of mine.
> 
>  When I cut the network connection, Bob tries to write "Alice died of 
>  noconnection" to Alice's console which obviously is unreachable. So loop 
>  crashEs and Bob dies.
> 
>  On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:56:20 +0200, Vincenzo Maggio wrote:
> > Absolutely, maybe it's us but I notice that you, as me, has tried all
> > the possibilities and in fact in any case but on link disconnection
> > bob (and we think is right, BTW!!!) remains alive and in good health.
> > I hope someone shows up with a clever explanation, if not it's
> > perfectly understable to file a bug.
> >
> >>  I disconnect Alice from the network -> Bob joins his ancestors.
> > Ahahah, may it rest in peace with the ones he loved!!!
> >
> >
> >> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:49:29 -0600
> >> From: erlang@REDACTED
> >> To: maggio.vincenzo@REDACTED
> >> CC: erlang-questions@REDACTED
> >> Subject: RE: [erlang-questions] Process surviving disconnect
> >>
> >>  OK, I changed the spawn_link to spawn and subsequent monitor as you
> >>  suggest: exactely the same behaviour.
> >>
> >>  Alice terminates gracefully -> Bob gets informed and is alive.
> >>  Alice terminates ungracefully -> Bob gets informed and is alive.
> >>  I kill Alice's node -> Bob gets informed and is alive.
> >>  I disconnect Alice from the network -> Bob joins his ancestors.
> >>
> >>  So I will wait some days more here on erlang-questions and if 
> >> nothing
> >>  shows up here, I will file a bug and hopefully will be proven 
> >> wrong.
> >>
> >>  On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 22:23:06 +0200, Vincenzo Maggio wrote:
> >> > Use monitor(process, PID_TO_BE_MONITORED) after spawn.
> >> > BTW not having two PCs I simply tested your code killing alice and
> >> > guess what? bob survives! :)
> >> >
> >> >> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:13:37 -0600
> >> >> From: erlang@REDACTED
> >> >> To: maggio.vincenzo@REDACTED
> >> >> CC: erlang-questions@REDACTED
> >> >> Subject: RE: [erlang-questions] Process surviving disconnect
> >> >>
> >> >>  Thank you for your quick answer.
> >> >>
> >> >> > BTW, before filing a bug, could you please substitute 
> >> spawn_link
> >> >> with
> >> >> > spawn_monitor and remove the process_flag lines? It would be
> >> >> > interesting to understand if either bob dies on its own or it's
> >> >> > killed
> >> >> > by no more being able to communicate with alice.
> >> >>
> >> >>  I am not sure how to replace spawn_link with spawn_monitor, as
> >> >> neither
> >> >>  spawn_monitor/1 nor spawn_monitor/3 take a node parameter.
> >> >>  How do I do that or how else can I get some more detailed
> >> >> information
> >> >>  about Bob's sudden passing the Styx.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>  On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:48:30 +0200, Vincenzo Maggio wrote:
> >> >> > Hello,
> >> >> > I think something is wrong here.
> >> >> >>  Bob die of noconnection.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This is printed by
> >> >> >>  		{'EXIT', Bob, Reason} ->
> >> >> >>  			io:format ("Bob died of ~p.~n", [Reason] ),
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So alice is in fact receiving bob last death cry :D and
> >> >> process_flag
> >> >> > translate it in a message instead of transmitting exit signal 
> >> to
> >> >> > alice; I think this is ok from the point of view of Alice, so 
> >> the
> >> >> > real
> >> >> > problem is that bob is dying (I know it's mundane, but I 
> >> learned
> >> >> not
> >> >> > to make assumption).
> >> >> > Mmm, well I don't know if having no more a connection between 
> >> the
> >> >> > process makes Erlang VM do some assumption of a virtual master
> >> >> node.
> >> >> > Well, if you want my opinion, I think that you should file a 
> >> bug
> >> >> on
> >> >> > the Erlang bugs mailing list if no one comes up with a proper
> >> >> > explanation.
> >> >> > Even if what we're thinking is wrong and this is not a bug, in 
> >> the
> >> >> > past I had a problem on node lookup and they resolved it.
> >> >> > These are my two cents, but if you can please let me know if 
> >> there
> >> >> > are further updates 'cause it's a really interesting problem.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > BTW, before filing a bug, could you please substitute 
> >> spawn_link
> >> >> with
> >> >> > spawn_monitor and remove the process_flag lines? It would be
> >> >> > interesting to understand if either bob dies on its own or it's
> >> >> > killed
> >> >> > by no more being able to communicate with alice.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Vincenzo
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:57:35 -0600
> >> >> >> From: erlang@REDACTED
> >> >> >> To: maggio.vincenzo@REDACTED
> >> >> >> CC: erlang-questions@REDACTED
> >> >> >> Subject: RE: [erlang-questions] Process surviving disconnect
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  Thank you very much Vincenzo. You affirmed my assertion that 
> >> Bob
> >> >> >> should
> >> >> >>  survive the disconnect.
> >> >> >>  Nevertheless he dies.
> >> >> >>  I will point out exactly what I do and maybe someone can spot
> >> >> the
> >> >> >> error
> >> >> >>  in my code, my setup or my thinking and tell me what I am 
> >> doing
> >> >> >> wrong.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  I start a node on gca.local:
> >> >> >>  unroot@REDACTED:~$ erl -name 'bob@REDACTED' -setcookie 123
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  I start a node on usa.local:
> >> >> >>  unroot@REDACTED:~$ erl -name 'alice@REDACTED' -setcookie 123
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  I start sasl on bob@REDACTED:
> >> >> >>  (bob@REDACTED)1> application:start (sasl).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  I run alice:start/0 on alice@REDACTED:
> >> >> >>  (alice@REDACTED)1> alice:start ().
> >> >> >>  true
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  I look for bob on bob@REDACTED and save its pid:
> >> >> >>  (bob@REDACTED)2> whereis (bob).
> >> >> >>  <0.65.0>
> >> >> >>  (bob@REDACTED)3> Pid = whereis (bob).
> >> >> >>  <0.65.0>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  I cut the network cable and wait a minute for the timeout.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  On alice@REDACTED I get the following output:
> >> >> >>  =ERROR REPORT==== 17-Aug-2011::10:53:21 ===
> >> >> >>  ** Node 'bob@REDACTED' not responding **
> >> >> >>  ** Removing (timedout) connection **
> >> >> >>  Bob die of noconnection.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  Nice, Alice trapped Bob's death and reported it. I check for
> >> >> Alice:
> >> >> >>  (alice@REDACTED)2> whereis (alice).
> >> >> >>  <0.42.0>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  Alice is up and running.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  On bob@REDACTED I get the following output:
> >> >> >>  =ERROR REPORT==== 17-Aug-2011::10:53:10 ===
> >> >> >>  ** Node 'alice@REDACTED' not responding **
> >> >> >>  ** Removing (timedout) connection **
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  But Bob is dead:
> >> >> >>  (bob@REDACTED)4> whereis (bob).
> >> >> >>  undefined
> >> >> >>  (bob@REDACTED)5> is_process_alive (Pid).
> >> >> >>  false
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  I really do not understand what is happening.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  Thank you in advance
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  Anchise
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  Here goes the code I used:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  -module (alice).
> >> >> >>  -compile (export_all).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  start () -> register (alice, spawn (fun init/0) ).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  stop () -> whereis (alice) ! stop.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  init () ->
> >> >> >>  	process_flag (trap_exit, true),
> >> >> >>  	Bob = spawn_link ('bob@REDACTED', bob, start, [self () ] ),
> >> >> >>  	loop (Bob).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  loop (Bob) ->
> >> >> >>  	receive
> >> >> >>  		stop -> ok;
> >> >> >>  		{'EXIT', Bob, Reason} ->
> >> >> >>  			io:format ("Bob died of ~p.~n", [Reason] ),
> >> >> >>  			loop (Bob);
> >> >> >>  		Msg ->
> >> >> >>  			io:format ("Alice received ~p.~n", [Msg] ),
> >> >> >>  			loop (Bob)
> >> >> >>  	end.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  -module (bob).
> >> >> >>  -compile (export_all).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  start (Alice) ->
> >> >> >>  	process_flag (trap_exit, true),
> >> >> >>  	register (bob, self () ),
> >> >> >>  	loop (Alice).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  loop (Alice) ->
> >> >> >>  	receive
> >> >> >>  		stop -> ok;
> >> >> >>  		{'EXIT', Alice, Reason} ->
> >> >> >>  			io:format ("Alice died of ~p.~n", [Reason] ),
> >> >> >>  			loop (Alice);
> >> >> >>  		Msg ->
> >> >> >>  			io:format ("Bob received ~p.~n", [Msg] ),
> >> >> >>  			loop (Alice)
> >> >> >>  	end.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 12:47:02 +0200, Vincenzo Maggio wrote:
> >> >> >> > Hello,
> >> >> >> > without further info a debug is rather difficult.
> >> >> >> > But let's try to at least start analysis of the problem:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>   - Has this something to do that I initially spawn Bob 
> >> from
> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> Alice
> >> >> >> >>  node?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Absolutely not: this would hit the very foundation of 
> >> Erlang,
> >> >> >> process
> >> >> >> > referential transparency. When a process is started is a 
> >> brand
> >> >> >> new,
> >> >> >> > clean entity (indeed, default process heap space is always 
> >> the
> >> >> >> same
> >> >> >> > size!).
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>   - How can I make Bob to survive a connection loss?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Look above: it SHOULD survive.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Can you please start SASL (application:start(sasl) from the
> >> >> shell)
> >> >> >> > and see if shell log puts some further information?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Vincenzo
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20110818/26297738/attachment.htm>