Page 1 of 1

Warning message inside the logs

Posted: 02 Sep 2009, 10:37
by lekboon
Hi,

Recently i had received some of the warning message inside ours SFS logs. There are:


2009/09/02 06:07:51.768 - [ WARNING ] [id: 21] (SystemHandler.handleLoginRequest): Connection was closed during login phase.
2009/09/02 06:07:53.575 - [ WARNING ] [id: 13] (SmartFoxServer.checkNewConnections): CheckNewConnection Problem: closed channel.

2009/09/02 05:52:53.026 - [ WARNING ] [id: 33] (User.exitAllRooms): Problems during user removal: 587415452


Any possible reason causes the warning message occurs?

i am using the SFS_PRO_1.6.6 (had patched to 1.6.7)

Thanks

Posted: 02 Sep 2009, 17:18
by Lapo
Yes, these should be rare cases where the server is unable to accomplish proper disconnection. Unfortunately these things happen, they very low level (TCP), and they depend on many variables. What we do is we attempt to deal with those as gracefully and defensively as possible and log the event.
2009/09/02 05:52:53.026 - [ WARNING ] [id: 33] (User.exitAllRooms): Problems during user removal: 587415452
In this specific case the User might get an "User name already taken" error if he attempts to log in the Zone again.

Since SFS 1.6.3 we have included a "force login" option in the login methods that allows the user to re-enter after a prior "bad" disconnection.
This will help in the above mentioned cases.

Posted: 03 Sep 2009, 08:20
by lekboon
Lapo wrote:Yes, these should be rare cases where the server is unable to accomplish proper disconnection. Unfortunately these things happen, they very low level (TCP), and they depend on many variables. What we do is we attempt to deal with those as gracefully and defensively as possible and log the event.
2009/09/02 05:52:53.026 - [ WARNING ] [id: 33] (User.exitAllRooms): Problems during user removal: 587415452
In this specific case the User might get an "User name already taken" error if he attempts to log in the Zone again.

Since SFS 1.6.3 we have included a "force login" option in the login methods that allows the user to re-enter after a prior "bad" disconnection.
This will help in the above mentioned cases.
Hi Lapo, thanks for the comments.

So when those error was occurs(Problems during user removal), will the user object still keep on the server side or it will only kick out the existing User object when the same users join back the games again?
(ya we are using the force login when login into the games)

Will the server skip trigger the handleInternalEvent like "userLost" or "userExit" when those warning is occurs?

Posted: 06 Sep 2009, 09:06
by Lapo
So when those error was occurs(Problems during user removal), will the user object still keep on the server side or it will only kick out the existing User object when the same users join back the games again?
It's more complicated than that. Anyways you shouldn't see the old User object from your code or client side.
Will the server skip trigger the handleInternalEvent like "userLost" or "userExit" when those warning is occurs?
I would say yes.

Force Login

Posted: 25 Sep 2009, 19:55
by matrix211v1
Lapo wrote: Since SFS 1.6.3 we have included a "force login" option in the login methods that allows the user to re-enter after a prior "bad" disconnection.
This will help in the above mentioned cases.
I am trying to find the documentation for the "force login" for I get that User.exitAllRooms message all the time.

Can you please direct me to it? Thanks!

Posted: 26 Sep 2009, 08:34
by Lapo
The option is discussed in the login() method (or canLogin() for Java)

Posted: 15 Oct 2009, 13:30
by vtween
Hi Lapo,

I also see this Warning message in my logs.

Code: Select all

[ WARNING ] > Problems during user removal: TEST00049
During my load tests I immitate around 7500 users over the server.
The login rate is about 15 users per second.
The logout rate is about the same 15 logouts per second.

These numbers are extrapulated from our real game server (production) data, of ~ 3000 connected users at peak time.

I use the userExit/userLost events in order to update some user data in the database.

The rate of error is about 35 per minute = 1:25 error rate.
This rate may become problematic of me in the near future.

Can you please elaborate the reasons for this error?
Is there a way handle / detect this problem?

Thanks,
VTween

Posted: 29 Oct 2009, 19:46
by alia
Hiyas,

Our dev team has also encountered the following warning in our wrapper log (it happens on every log out):

Code: Select all

2009/10/29 11:42:13.179 - [ WARNING ] [id: 11] (User.exitAllRooms): Problems during user removal: dev
We did some investigation and narrowed down the problem to a database update call we make when the user logs out. Upon further research, we found that any blocking call can potentially cause the same warning:

Code: Select all

if (ieo.getEventName().equals(InternalEventObject.EVENT_LOGOUT))
{
    try
    {
          synchronized (this) {    wait(1000);    }  // BLOCK
    }
    catch (InterruptedException e)
    {
          SmartFoxServer.log.info("Interupted");
    }
}
Any idea why this might occur? Is this warning safe to ignore or is there a known work around?

Cheers,

A.

Posted: 07 Mar 2011, 19:31
by evilyummycandy
Sorry to revive an old thread but I am also getting a significant amount of entries in the wrapper log files which say:

[ WARNING ] > Problems during user removal: [ Name ]

Was or is there a solution to this? from what I can tell there is no errors what so ever and everything seems to be running fine but there is a lot of these entries in the log file.

Posted: 07 Mar 2011, 23:19
by BigFIsh
@ evilyummycandy What is your SFS version?

Do you know where about this problem occur? During logout? During disconnection?

Posted: 08 Mar 2011, 02:01
by evilyummycandy
I am running 1.6.9

As for when it happens I believe it is at disconnect but I don't have much more info because I am not sure how to diagnose this.

Posted: 08 Mar 2011, 09:33
by BigFIsh
Try setting up trace messages in the userLost and logOut internal events, along with additional information about the user such as the rooms that he was previously in etc. This should help narrow down the problem.