accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
Subject Re: Randomwalk unbalanced servers - still an issue?
Date Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:25:34 GMT
Interesting - I think I might have run into that once a whole bunch of 
RW runs.

I assume you didn't change the agitation intervals from what's in the 
example? The parameters as they stand are, I think, acceptable. Being 
unbalanced for that long doesn't seem right. Did you identify why you 
were unbalanced?

I'm not sure making that configurable is good either as you're now 
skewing one randomwalk test to another (in addition to the variance you 
already have from resources available).

Personally, if you run into this, and you can identify that there was a 
legitimate reason to be unbalanced across that time and those checks, 
I'd be more in favor of just restarting that RW client.

On 2/8/14, 11:50 AM, Bill Havanki wrote:
> While running 1.5.1 rc1 through randomwalk I hit a failure in the
> Concurrent test due to the tablet servers being "unbalanced". See
> ACCUMULO-2198 for some background on the last time I ran into this.
> What is the general feeling on dealing with this failure? Is a 15-minute
> period too short to wait for balancing, or three consecutive failures too
> few to allow? I'm using only a 7-node cluster with 5 tservers, maybe an
> unbalanced condition is more tolerable then?
> The parameters defining "unbalanced" aren't configurable at the moment, and
> I'm inclined to file a JIRA to make them so, to shepherd the test through,
> but I'd love to hear what you think about the importance and proper
> parameters for this check.
> Thanks,
> Bill

View raw message