Comments (8)
d-maurer
commented on June 16, 2024
Is the problem reproducible on the result of pickling and then unpickling your tree?
If this is the case, you could attach the pickle of your tree to this issue and we would be able to analyse the tree. Otherwise, you have a way to mostly repair your tree with this approach.
Of course, it is possible that your tree can no longer be pickled.
Note that you should also tell which ZODB version you are using.
A BTree consists of two parts: a tree form access structure and a linked list of buckets. Your observation indicates that the access structure is damaged. Fortunately, the entire relevant information is contained in the linked bucket list. You can rebuild the tree from this list: create a new tree, iterate over the bucket list and put their content into the new tree. Thus, you willl be able to recover. Nevertheless, it might be interesting to learn in what way the structure is damaged.
from btrees.
matthchr
commented on June 16, 2024
@d-maurer thanks for the quick response. We're using ZODB 5.5.1, BTrees 4.5.1
Yes, the problem persists through pickling -- even modifying the broken BTree in a variety of ways (such as removing other items and then re-persisting it) doesn't make the issue go away.
I've attached the BTree in question saved into a basic ZODB with the same version mentioned above, located at matthchr.zip -- unzip it and it contains matthchr.db.
You can crack it open like so:
zodb = ZODB.DB('matthchr.db')
conn = zodb.open()
repro = conn.root()['a']
I'm not super interested in repairing this (there's not any critical data in the BTree which I am afraid of losing) -- more in understanding either what we did wrong to cause this, or if there is a bug in ZODB/BTrees which needs to be fixed.
from btrees.
d-maurer
commented on June 16, 2024
Matthew Christopher wrote at 2019-3-15 14:59 -0700:
@d-maurer thanks for the quick response. We're using ZODB 5.5.1, BTrees 4.5.1
I've attached the BTree in question saved into a basic ZODB with the same version mentioned above, located at [matthchr.zip](https://github.com/zopefoundation/BTrees/files/2973046/matthchr.zip) -- unzip it and it contains `matthchr.db`.
You can crack it open like so:
```
zodb = ZODB.DB('matthchr.db')
conn = zodb.open()
repro = conn.root()['a']
```
I'm not super interested in repairing this (there's not any critical data in the BTree which I am afraid of losing) -- more in understanding either what we did wrong to cause this, or if there is a bug in ZODB/BTrees which needs to be fixed.
I have found what is wrong with your tree.
From the documentation (--> "Development.txt" in the "BTrees" package):
+ In a non-empty BTree, every bucket node contains at least one key, and every
BTree node contains at least one child and a non-NULL firstbucket pointer.
However, a BTree node may not contain any keys.
In your tree, this condition is violated: the last bucket is empty.
You can verify this by looking at its state
`repro.__getstate__()`. This is a pair where the first element
represents the first level structure of the tree and the second
element is the reference to the first bucket.
The structure is represented by a tuple of the
form "b_0, s_1, b_1, ..., b_n-1, s_n, b_n" where the "b_i"
are buckets and the "s_i" separators.
"repro.__getstate__()[0][-1]" gives the empty "BTrees.OOBTree.OOBucket([])".
That you see such an inconsistency likely indicates a bug in
the "BTrees" code.
The static state does not allow to determine with certainty
what this bug could be but as conflict resolution is particularly
difficult (and "BTrees" try to resolve conflicts aggressively),
a conflict resolution problem could be a candidate.
Is you tree used in an environment with high conflict risk
(i.e. many concurrent writes)?
from btrees.
d-maurer
commented on June 16, 2024
Matthew Christopher wrote at 2019-3-15 14:59 -0700:
... We're using ZODB 5.5.1, BTrees 4.5.1
... and python 3.
from btrees.
matthchr
commented on June 16, 2024
The instance we saw this bug may have had concurrent writes. We actually do our best to avoid them via locking but after I saw this I went and looked and realized there's at least once place where we wern't locking properly and could've allowed a concurrent write (add w/ simultaneous delete).
I don't think many would be true though. At the most, 2-3 concurrent writes would've happened, certainly not more than that.
I've seen 5-6 additional repro's of this issue since I started looking for it, I'll make some changes to improve our locking and see if that resolves the problem, as a concurrency issue was what it felt like to me as well...
from btrees.
d-maurer
commented on June 16, 2024
Matthew Christopher wrote at 2019-3-15 17:15 -0700:
...
I've seen 5-6 additional repro's of this issue since I started looking for it, I'll make some changes to improve our locking and see if that resolves the problem, as a concurrency issue was what it felt like to me as well...
I have tried to detect weaknesses in the conflict resolution which
might lead to an empty bucket -- without success.
The current "BTrees" version seems to detect these cases
reliably and refuse to resolve the conflict in case of a risk.
Have your broken trees been created with a different "BTrees"
version or did they go through a Python 2 --> Python 3 migration?
from btrees.
d-maurer
commented on June 16, 2024
Matthew Christopher wrote at 2019-3-15 17:15 -0700:
...
I've seen 5-6 additional repro's of this issue since I started looking for it, I'll make some changes to improve our locking and see if that resolves the problem, as a concurrency issue was what it felt like to me as well...
The inconsistency of your tree is detected by
`BTrees.check.check`:
>> tree = c.root()["a"]
>> check(tree)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "/home/dieter/tmp/xmlsec3/python/lib/python3.6/site-packages/BTrees/check.py", line 424, in check
Checker(btree).check()
File "/home/dieter/tmp/xmlsec3/python/lib/python3.6/site-packages/BTrees/check.py", line 338, in check
raise AssertionError(s)
AssertionError: Errors found in OOBTree (0xb718d70c oid=b'0xd1'):
key 'job-0000000386' >= upper bound 'job-0000000371' at index 1, in OOBucket (0xb71b341c oid=b'0xd8'), path from root 6
This indicates that the empty bucket might not be the primary
problem but caused by the key "job-0000000386" being inserted
into the wrong bucket.
I have used `dm.historical` to determine the history of this
broken bucket:
>> from dm.historical import getHistory
>> from pprint import pprint as pp
>> ts = tree.__getstate__()
>> t1=ts[0]
>> bb = t1[-3]
>> bb
BTrees.OOBTree.OOBucket([('job-0000000285', []), ('job-0000000386', [])])
>> pp(getHistory(bb))
'obj': BTrees.OOBTree.OOBucket([('job-0000000285', []), ('job-0000000386', [])]),
'size': 88,
'tid': b'\x03\xce`\x1c\xaf/\xcb3',
'time': DateTime('2019/03/15 22:48:41.059381 GMT+1'),
'user_name': ''},
{'description': '',
'obj': BTrees.OOBTree.OOBucket([('job-0000000285', []), ('job-0000000386', <persistent broken agent.task.data.JobPersistent instance b'\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\xda'>)]),
'size': 134,
'tid': b'\x03\xce_\xe3\xf2\xfa;\xaa',
'time': DateTime('2019/03/15 21:51:56.947845 GMT+1'),
'user_name': ''},
{'description': '',
'obj': BTrees.OOBTree.OOBucket([('job-0000000281', []), ('job-0000000285', []), ('job-0000000386', <persistent broken agent.task.data.JobPersistent instance b'\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\xda'>)]),
'size': 158,
'tid': b'\x03\xce_\xb73y\xc3\xbb',
'time': DateTime('2019/03/15 21:07:12.064604 GMT+1'),
'user_name': ''}]
Unfortunately, this means that the bucket has already been corrupted
when the latest packing has happened ("getHistory" can reconstruct
an object's history up to this point).
To find out more, you could periodically run `check`
over your trees in order to detect inconsistencies within a
short delay (at least, before you pack the storage).
You could then use `dm.historical` to determine the history
of the broken bucket. This way, you should be able to
determine the transaction which has damaged the bucket.
You should also be able to determine the previous state[s]
for this bucket and the containing tree.
Comparing the damaged state with its predecessor(s), we might
be able to guess which tree operation(s) has caused the damage.
The "description" field in the history above is always empty.
This indicates, that you are not using "transaction metadata"
(--> "Transaction.note"). You could use "Transaction.note" to
provide information about what the transaction has done
on a more global level.
All that information might make it possible to reproduce
the damage and then understand why it happens.
from btrees.
d-maurer
commented on June 16, 2024
Matthew Christopher wrote at 2019-3-15 17:15 -0700:
...
I've seen 5-6 additional repro's of this issue since I started looking for it, I'll make some changes to improve our locking and see if that resolves the problem, as a concurrency issue was what it felt like to me as well...
The state of your corrupted tree could have been caused
by two concurrent inserts where one insert splits
a bucket after the other insert has decided to insert into this bucket.
Usually, the ZODB prevents concurrency problems by allowing
each thread to use its own private copy of a persistent object
and check for potential concurrency problems during commit.
In case of a potential concurrency problem, it raises a
`ConflictError` and the potentially conflicting transaction is
usually retried.
This approach will not work when the application
passes on persistent objects (more precisely their copy destined
for the local thread) across threads. In that case,
multiple threads can modify the same copy concurrently
and easily create inconsistencies. Are you sure that
your application does not do this?
If multiple threads need access to the same persistent object,
each one must get its own local copy by loading it
(directly or indirectly) from a local (i.e. thread specific) ZODB connection.
The ZODB allows objects to resolve concurrency problems locally
(called "conflict resolution") - and the `BTrees` buckets make
intensive use of this possibility.
Conflict resolution is intrinsically difficult as it has only local knowledge
(it knows only a single conflicting objects - and does not know
whether there are conflicts in other objects;
it does not know in which context the object is used (e.g.
whether the bucket forms part of a larger tree);
it knows only partially the object's children (for persistent children
it knows only that they are persistent and their oid and does
not know its "value") and a resolved state should be correct
for any conflicting transactions.
Old `BTrees` versions had a conflict resolution which gave
wrong results for some important applications.
As far as I know, there are no such problems known for newer versions.
I have triggered "insert/split" conflicts and the conflict
resolution of the current `BTrees` version (the one you are
currently using) has correctly detected that it cannot handle
this case. Thus, apparently, your broken trees should not
be the result of a conflict resolution bug.
from btrees.
Related Issues (20)
- Release 4.7.3 HOT 2
- Pylance has problem resolving imports HOT 5
- Add support to release aarch64 wheels HOT 2
- Python 2: OxBTrees allow types as keys; Python 3 does not
- Can we move to the src/ layout? HOT 3
- Support PURE_PYTHON=0 to require C extensions
- BTree.get() swallows POSKeyError on internal corruption (C only) HOT 2
- Python/C Inconsistency: Detecting classes that just implement `__eq__`
- Python/C Inconsistency: Getting/Setting max_internal_size on the BTree class
- Regression in 4.9: Subclasses can't use @adapter
- fsBTree and fsTreeSet broken in 4.9.0/4.9.1
- fsBTree.difference fails when the second argument is a set HOT 2
- Zope5.2.1 install warnings HOT 3
- Convert to meta/config HOT 2
- Consider using cibuldwheel for building binary wheels. HOT 1
- 4.10.0: sphinx warnings `reference target not found` HOT 3
- 4.10.0: pytest is failing in some units HOT 6
- btrees not installing on m1 computer HOT 2
- Get a random element from a BTree HOT 2
- 'IFBucket' object has no attribute 'byValue' when running with PURE_PYTHON HOT 1
Recommend Projects
-
React
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
-
Vue.js
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
-
Typescript
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
-
TensorFlow
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
-
Django
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
-
Laravel
A PHP framework for web artisans
-
D3
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
-
Recommend Topics
-
javascript
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
-
web
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
-
server
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
-
Machine learning
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
-
Visualization
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
-
Game
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
Recommend Org
-
Facebook
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
-
Microsoft
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
-
Google
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
-
Alibaba
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
-
D3
Data-Driven Documents codes.
-
Tencent
China tencent open source team.
from btrees.