Maybe once I've had time to do a proper review.

On Aug 3, 2011, at 3:32 AM, Joshua Ballanco wrote:

> Hi Neil,
> 
> Good to hear you figured that out. I, too, had heard mention of Dalli as a replacement for memcache-client. Perhaps we should update Rack's gemspec?
> 
> - Josh
> On Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Neil Matatall wrote:
> 
>> Joshua,
>> 
>> I think what you described was indeed our issue. The call to @pool.add
>> actually returned "END" which is a sign of a get_multikey
>> 
>> We were using memcache-client and the author informed me that the
>> project was no longer supported and said that this can occur when the
>> same memcache instance handles sessions and data. He recommended
>> splitting the caches as well as switching to Dalli instead.
>> 
>> So...not a rack issue!
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Neil
>> 
>> On 7/25/11 1:23 PM, Joshua Ballanco wrote:
>>> Have you considered the possibility that memcache might be recycling
>>> keys on you?
>>> 
>>> We had an issue a while back where we were using memcache for both
>>> fragment caching and session storage. Occasionally, we would get
>>> exceptions in retrieving a session, and looking at the error message
>>> it was clear that what was retrieved from memcache was a fragment and
>>> not a session. Unfortunately, we moved back to a cookie-based session
>>> store before we had a chance to look deeper into the issue. What I can
>>> say is that based on the key generation scheme we were using for
>>> sessions and cache keys, there was effectively 0 chance that we were
>>> duplicating keys. Instead, it seemed like memcache was re-using slots
>>> for different keys when we started exhausting free slots.
>>> 
>>> Hope that helps!
>>> 
>>> - Joshua Ballanco
>>> 
>>> On Monday, July 25, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Neil wrote:
>>> 
>>>> While it's entirely possible that this issue is caused by some other
>>>> factor, but we are getting session collisions as well as an issue
>>>> where one user is getting another user's session. This is clearly
>>>> bad, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how this could even
>>>> happen in the first place. The code looks thread safe to me, and a
>>>> quick discussion on #ruby-lang seems to support that.
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts:
>>>> 1. Session IDs are being generated in the same sequence (uses
>>>> securerandom -> openssl which does not have a static seed)
>>>> 2. Threads. Looks good to me.
>>>> 3. Maybe memcached is returning something other than "STORED/
>>>> NOT_STORED" for @pool.add(sid, session), but the operation still
>>>> succeeded?
>>>> 4. Gnomes.
>>>> 
>>>> Any input is GREATLY appreciated. Please don't say "it's an RC, what
>>>> do you expect?" :)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From
>>>> https://github.com/rack/rack/blob/master/lib/rack/session/memcache.rb
>>>> def generate_sid
>>>> loop do
>>>> sid = super
>>>> break sid unless @pool.get(sid, true)
>>>> end
>>>> end
>>>> 
>>>> def get_session(env, sid)
>>>> with_lock(env, [nil, {}]) do
>>>> unless sid and session = @pool.get(sid)
>>>> sid, session = generate_sid, {}
>>>> unless /^STORED/ =~ @pool.add(sid, session)
>>>> raise "Session collision on '#{sid.inspect}'"
>>>> end
>>>> end
>>>> [sid, session]
>>>> end
>>>> end
>>>> 
>>>> def set_session(env, session_id, new_session, options)
>>>> expiry = options[:expire_after]
>>>> expiry = expiry.nil? ? 0 : expiry + 1
>>>> 
>>>> with_lock(env, false) do
>>>> @pool.set session_id, new_session, expiry
>>>> session_id
>>>> end
>>>> end
>