Wednesday, January 21, 2009

How to stop ComboBox from resizing itself automatically...

Adobe Flex 3

One of the many grievances I have with the otherwise wonderful Adobe Flex is the way the ComboBox component with percentage width resizes itself to accommodate the data which is loaded into it. There seems to be no switch to disable this behavior and yet retain the scalability of the ComboBox control itself.

The problem manifests itself best when you have, for example, two adjacent ComboBox widgets both set to be 50% width and you assign to the first a list of rows with short names and to the other a list of rows with long names - both widgets will resize themselves to a different width to accommodate their respective contents.

After searching for and failing to find a solution to this, I decided to try and write a workaround myself. I needed to fixate the width of the comboboxes right after they were first displayed and before they got their data. There was no need for the combobox to be resized later. In order to do this, I extended the original ComboBox and added the following code to it:

First I added a property via which you can turn on or off the new functionality:
/**
* Property indicating if the initially measured width of the combobox will be
* fixed as soon as the combobox has been layed out.
* Only applies to combobox'es which have their width specified as a percentage.
*/

[Inspectable(category="General", enumeration="true,false", defaultValue="false")]
public var fixPercentWidthAfterInitialMeasurement:Boolean = false;

Second, to the constructor of the combobox, I added an event listener:
public function AComboBox()
{
super();
this.addEventListener(FlexEvent.UPDATE_COMPLETE, handleUpdateComplete);
}

Finally, I added the event handler method:
/**
* This eventhandler is called right before the widget is drawn on screen - it's size has already been calculated,
* but it has not yet received its contents, therefore now it is good time to convert its percentage width into
* an explicit width, so that future data loaded into the combobox would not resize the compobox causing scrolling.
*/

private function handleUpdateComplete(event:FlexEvent):void
{
if (this.fixPercentWidthAfterInitialMeasurement &&
(!isNaN(this.percentWidth))) this.explicitWidth = this.width;
}

The idea here is to capture the event which is dispatched after the ComboBox size has been determined, right before the combobox is drawn on screen. Each ComboBox can have its width specified either explicitly in pixels or as a percentage of the containers width. When the width of the ComboBox is set as a percentage, I now assign its actual pixel width to the explicitWidth property. This will fixate the width and also stop the ComboBox from automatically resizing itself.

That solved the situation for me - the ComboBox retained its size after the initial layout.

Friday, January 9, 2009

A RAID success - with a Linux of course!

This is a continuation of my struggle to create a viable RAID-5 array for my sensitive data, started in this post and continued in this post
This saga continues in here.


The first tries at setting up Linux RAID system were failures for yet unknown reason. As suggested somewhere I created 20GiB partitions on each disk for /root filesystem to be RAID-1 (mirror) array and into the rest of the space I created partitions for /home filesystem in RAID-5. I tried this with both openSuSE 11.0 and the newest openSuSE 11.1, but in both cases the system was unable to boot, complaining about missing root filesystem. Sometimes the system would boot if I gave it the obvious root=/dev/md0 as the kernel parameter, other times even that did not help.

After some more experimenting I finally gave up trying to make the system totally redundant and resolved the situation by putting 10GiB on each of the four disks aside for /root, /swap, /usr and /tmp, accordingly, and using the rest of the space on disks as a RAID-5 /home partition. This worked as a charm of course.

I did extensive testing on the redundancy of the drive and found it to be rock solid. When one of the drive was disconnected, the MD reported an active RAID-5 system having with 3 out of 4 drives working... and that's it. Coping, moving and changing the content did not even seem to be any slower than before.

After some testing I re-attached the fourth drive and booted the system up again. This time the boot messages reported that the fourth drive of the array was rejected as not being fresh. Checking the mdadm command for any clues how to make the array complete again showed that the correct command was
mdadm --manage /dev/md0 --add /dev/sdd2
after that, the rebuilding of the fourth drive commenced in the background (it took a few hours) and the system was again working at peak efficiency.

Later I have been thinking what did I do wrong in the first two attempts and there are some things I can think of, but these must be verified first:
  1. I used partition type Linux-RAID when creating partitions to be set up as RAID-1 later for the /root file system. Maybe I should have used the normal Linux partition type instead?
  2. After creating the first 20GiB partition, I used the rest of the drive for the second partition on each drive. Since the drives were not identical, I probably should have created the second partition by specifying the size by hand, keeping it some gigs smaller than the rest of the space to insure the equality on all drives?
Anyway, now I am sure that I can restore all of my data, if one of the drives fails and as a bonus, I am also sure that I can insert a replacement drive and continue working without any need to reinstall the system.
I call that a success story!

Monday, January 5, 2009

More RAID rant

This post is an update to my previous post about my RAID-5 experience. Also see the continuation of this saga.

I found some disturbing problems with the nForce semi-software RAID-5 fault tolerance - without the fourth drive, the array seemed to work normally, but any modifications to the drive contents seemed to corrupt data on the drive. For example, in order to back up the data, after I had copied a few folders of data, I started to verify the copied data and delete it as I moved on. I always do it this way - first copy the data over, then run byte-per-byte verify (or MD5 hash verify) to see if the copy process worked and only after successful verify I will delete the data at the source.

Now, however, after I had verified and deleted the first folder of data from the RAID-5 array, the next folder showed an error in couple of files. Since they were picture files I was able to visually check the difference and the result was puzzling - the copied data seemed to be OK, but the source data on RAID-5 was corrupted. I tried a reboot, but the source file contents were still corrupted. I dismissed this as random happening and deleted the source (after all the errors were in the source data). Now the next folder showed even more corruptions and again the corrupted data was at the source.

A RAID-5 array with N drives saves actual data on N-1 of the drives and calculates a parity information to the remaining one drive. The data is saved in rotating stripes, so that the parity information of each next stripe is always on a different disk.
In case of reading data, if any one of the drives have failed, then N-1 times out of N, the the failed part of the data for each stripe is constructed by using the parity.

For example, when a stripe has parity on the drive 4, but drive 2 has failed, then the contents of drive 1 and 3 as well as the drive 4 with parity info is read and the contents of the failed drive 2 is constructed from the three other drives. Only in case the drive 2 held the parity data, is the reconstruction not needed.

The writing, however, is much more difficult. Assuming the above scenario, if the data is updated in the drive 1 region, then in addition to updating data on drive 1, the contents of drives 3 and 4 are read, the contents of drive 2 is temporarily reconstructed and new parity data is generated, which is updated on drive 4. If the data is updated in the failed drive 2 region, then similarly the data from drives 1, 3 and 4 are read, the original data of drive 2 is reconstructed, updated in memory and new parity is created and updated on drive 4.

Since the corruption was only few dozen bytes at a time and with no detectable pattern of changed bits I dismissed any further drive failure and assumed that one of the SATA cables could be faulty. I bought full set of new cables and tried again, recreated new RAID-5 array, copied a few dozen gigabytes of data on it. Made a copy of the data and then another copy of the same data. While the second copy was in progress, I disconnected one of the drives. At first, everything seemed to work normally. The array was in degraded mode and the copy was finished normally. Then I started to verify the copies of the data. At first things looked good, but then one of the bigger files had a few kilobytes of data totally differing in the middle of the file.

At this point I decided to power off the system, re-attach the drive I removed earlier and try the rebuilding. However, the nForce RAID BIOS reported error for the fourth drive and did not integrate it to the array. Booting Windows was also broken. After several attempts, somehow, I was able to boot and log into Windows at which point most things I tried to run either crashed, reported access violations or did not run at all.

For me, all this means that I will never trust the chipset semi-software RAID anymore. It could well be, that it is my motherboard that is at fault here, or the BIOS version... But still, having the RAID array is all about the ability to save important data on it without the need to worry if it will still be available after something happens to one of the drives. When the RAID array starts to corrupt data while in degraded mode then there really is no point in having a redundant RAID array.

If anyone has had a success using a chipset provided BIOS RAID array where a drive has failed in the middle of using it, please let me know the type and model of your motherboard.

Next I will try the software RAID offered by Linux. I'll try to do the same kind of trick - power down one of the disks while in use and see if and how much data I'll lose.