1 Reply Latest reply on Jun 17, 2019 4:59 AM by nadirx

    Problem with cache consistency

    ggolebio
    ggolebio Jun 17, 2019 4:44 AM

      I'm struggling with Infinispan (8.2.x, 7.1.x) cache consistency during a massive update of value on one key.

      My cache is defined like this (I tried other options and combinations but without success):

       

                <replicated-cache name="refCounterCache" mode="SYNC" >

                        <locking isolation="READ_COMMITTED" write-skew="false" />

                        <versioning scheme="SIMPLE" />

                        <transaction locking="PESSIMISTIC"

                                   auto-commit="true"

                                   complete-timeout="60000"

                                   mode="NON_DURABLE_XA"

                                   protocol="DEFAULT"

                                   reaper-interval="30000"

                                   stop-timeout="30000"/>

                </replicated-cache>

       

      The test case is very simple. On cache defined like this:

         

           Cache<String, Integer> refernceCounterCache = cacheManager.getCache("refCounterCache");

       

      In one of nodes I set initial key value for key as 1000; Later in the same time I call on every node code that 2000 times increment value for key:

       

      IntStream.range(0, 2000).forEach(i -> {
               try {
             refernceCounterCache      .merge(key, 1, (vOld, vNew) -> vNew + vOld);
               }
               catch (Exception ex) {
             log      .error("Unexpected error during value merge!");
               }
               });

       

      When I run the above lambda code on a single node cluster (one program instance) everything works as expected (value 3000).

      Problem starts when I have more than two nodes. In case of 3 nodes incremented concurrently I get unexpected results e.g. 6973 instead of 7000.

      Anyone know where the problem is? Maybe wrong type of cache? Maybe wrong locking options?

      I tried different options of locking, versioning , transactions, distributed cache instead of replicated etc and still without success.