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

test: dynamic port in cluster worker dgram #12487

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

test: dynamic port in cluster worker dgram #12487

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sebastianplesciuc
Copy link

Remove common.PORT from test-cluster-dgram-1 and
test-cluster-dgram-2, in order to eliminate the
possibility of port collision.

Refs: #12376

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • tests and/or benchmarks are included
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

test

Remove common.PORT from test-cluster-dgram-1 and
test-cluster-dgram-2, in order to eliminate the
possibility of port collision.

Refs: #12376
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added the test Issues and PRs related to the tests. label Apr 18, 2017
@mscdex mscdex added cluster Issues and PRs related to the cluster subsystem. dgram Issues and PRs related to the dgram subsystem / UDP. labels Apr 18, 2017
Copy link
Member

@jasnell jasnell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm if ci is green

@vsemozhetbyt
Copy link
Contributor

Trott
Trott previously requested changes Apr 18, 2017
@@ -111,5 +111,5 @@ function worker() {
}
}, PACKETS_PER_WORKER));

socket.bind(common.PORT);
socket.bind(0);
Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott Apr 18, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this is right. I think each of the four workers will get a different port with this change. In the current test, they are all using the same port and I think that behavior should be preserved. Otherwise, all the messages go to a single worker.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Trott I think they'll be using the same port because exclusive defaults to false and the fd will be shared among workers

Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott Apr 18, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@santigimeno Debugging indicates you are correct. Clearing my review. Thanks.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@santigimeno sorry, but mind explaining why this is correct?

Copy link
Member

@santigimeno santigimeno Apr 19, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@benjamingr, from the dgram documentation:

The options object may contain an additional exclusive property that is use when using dgram.Socket objects with the cluster module. When exclusive is set to false (the default), cluster workers will use the same underlying socket handle allowing connection handling duties to be shared. When exclusive is true, however, the handle is not shared and attempted port sharing results in an error.

I think this is how it works:

When a worker binds a UDP socket in non-exclusive mode, it requests the master process for a valid socket handle by sending a queryServer cluster message with the socket info (key). The master will create the socket handle only after receiving the first message with that specific key and then send the handle back to the worker. The following messages from the workers requesting a socket handle with the same key, will cause the master to send the same handle back to every worker.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@santigimeno thanks!

@Trott Trott dismissed their stale review April 18, 2017 20:03

My objection was misguided. Woot.

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Apr 21, 2017

Any reason this shouldn't land?

Trott pushed a commit to Trott/io.js that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2017
Remove common.PORT from test-cluster-dgram-1 and
test-cluster-dgram-2, in order to eliminate the
possibility of port collision.

PR-URL: nodejs#12487
Ref: nodejs#12376
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Apr 23, 2017

Landed in cf68280. Thanks for the contribution!

@Trott Trott closed this Apr 23, 2017
evanlucas pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2017
Remove common.PORT from test-cluster-dgram-1 and
test-cluster-dgram-2, in order to eliminate the
possibility of port collision.

PR-URL: #12487
Ref: #12376
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
@evanlucas evanlucas mentioned this pull request May 1, 2017
evanlucas pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 1, 2017
Remove common.PORT from test-cluster-dgram-1 and
test-cluster-dgram-2, in order to eliminate the
possibility of port collision.

PR-URL: #12487
Ref: #12376
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
evanlucas pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 2, 2017
Remove common.PORT from test-cluster-dgram-1 and
test-cluster-dgram-2, in order to eliminate the
possibility of port collision.

PR-URL: #12487
Ref: #12376
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
gibfahn pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 16, 2017
Remove common.PORT from test-cluster-dgram-1 and
test-cluster-dgram-2, in order to eliminate the
possibility of port collision.

PR-URL: #12487
Ref: #12376
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
MylesBorins pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 18, 2017
Remove common.PORT from test-cluster-dgram-1 and
test-cluster-dgram-2, in order to eliminate the
possibility of port collision.

PR-URL: #12487
Ref: #12376
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
@MylesBorins MylesBorins mentioned this pull request May 23, 2017
andrew749 pushed a commit to michielbaird/node that referenced this pull request Jul 19, 2017
Remove common.PORT from test-cluster-dgram-1 and
test-cluster-dgram-2, in order to eliminate the
possibility of port collision.

PR-URL: nodejs/node#12487
Ref: nodejs/node#12376
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cluster Issues and PRs related to the cluster subsystem. dgram Issues and PRs related to the dgram subsystem / UDP. test Issues and PRs related to the tests.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants