Handle hash collision in KeyShared subscription mode #8396
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@jiazhai @codelipenghui PTAL |
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
|
@ltamber Could you please add some unit test for the new change? |
|
@codelipenghui It seem that hard to simulate(but it does exist) hash collision when use murmur_3, so I just run the |
|
/pulsarbot run-failure-checks |
sijie
approved these changes
Oct 30, 2020
codelipenghui
approved these changes
Oct 31, 2020
huangdx0726
pushed a commit
to huangdx0726/pulsar
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2020
…pache#8396) ### Motivation Currently, in `ConsistentHashingStickyKeyConsumerSelector` key consumer selector，if multi key have the same hash code, the consumer in the `hashRing` will be replaced by the newer consumer, so the behavior of the message dispatch will not consistent if the consumer subscribed in a different order. ### Modifications handle the hash collision with a list. ### Verifying this change unit test `ConsistentHashingStickyKeyConsumerSelectorTest` was passed.
flowchartsman
pushed a commit
to flowchartsman/pulsar
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 17, 2020
…pache#8396) ### Motivation Currently, in `ConsistentHashingStickyKeyConsumerSelector` key consumer selector，if multi key have the same hash code, the consumer in the `hashRing` will be replaced by the newer consumer, so the behavior of the message dispatch will not consistent if the consumer subscribed in a different order. ### Modifications handle the hash collision with a list. ### Verifying this change unit test `ConsistentHashingStickyKeyConsumerSelectorTest` was passed.
lhotari
reviewed
Sep 20, 2024
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return consumerList.get(hash % consumerList.size()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ltamber I have a question about this line of code in #23315 (comment) . Are you available to answer that question? Thanks /cc @codelipenghui
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I made a change already, #23327
This was referenced Sep 20, 2024
[Bug] Hash range collision causes out-of-order cases between existing consumers in Key_Shared
#23315
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
Currently, in
ConsistentHashingStickyKeyConsumerSelectorkey consumer selector，if multi key have the same hash code, the consumer in thehashRingwill be replaced by the newer consumer, so the behavior of the message dispatch will not consistent if the consumer subscribed in a different order.Modifications
handle the hash collision with a list.
Verifying this change
unit test
ConsistentHashingStickyKeyConsumerSelectorTestwas passed.