Skip to content

too many NOTIFY_CONSUMER_IDS_CHANGED block pullThread will cause request timeout #137

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

Closed
ifplusor opened this issue Apr 17, 2019 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@ifplusor
Copy link
Contributor

ifplusor commented Apr 17, 2019

The issue tracker is ONLY used for the CPP/C client (feature request of RocketMQ need to follow RIP process). Keep in mind, please check whether there is an existing same report before your raise a new one.

Alternately (especially if your communication is not a bug report), you can send mail to our mailing lists. We welcome any friendly suggestions, bug fixes, collaboration, and other improvements.

Please ensure that your bug report is clear and that it is complete. Otherwise, we may be unable to understand it or to reproduce it, either of which would prevent us from fixing the bug. We strongly recommend the report(bug report or feature request) could include some hints as to the following:

BUG REPORT

  1. Please describe the issue you observed:
  • What did you do (The steps to reproduce)?

when many client start in same time, too many NOTIFY_CONSUMER_IDS_CHANGED cause so many rebalance, they block pullThread and all request will timeout.

  • What did you expect to see?

response come, and request return.

  • What did you see instead?
  1. Please tell us about your environment:
  • What is your OS?

  • What is your client version?

  • What is your RocketMQ version?

  1. Other information (e.g. detailed explanation, logs, related issues, suggestions on how to fix, etc):

FEATURE REQUEST

  1. Please describe the feature you are requesting.

  2. Provide any additional detail on your proposed use case for this feature.

  3. Indicate the importance of this issue to you (blocker, must-have, should-have, nice-to-have). Are you currently using any workarounds to address this issue?

  4. If there are some sub-tasks using -[] for each subtask and create a corresponding issue to map to the sub task:

@ShannonDing ShannonDing added this to the 1.2.3 milestone Apr 19, 2019
jonnxu added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 8, 2019
@jonnxu jonnxu added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 20, 2019
@ShannonDing
Copy link
Member

close due to #156

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants