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 16:33:03 GMT
On 2/10/14, 10:33 AM, Bill Havanki wrote:
> I used the standard agitation intervals. I don't understand enough about
> the system yet to ascertain why tablets stayed unbalanced. One possibility
> is the timing of the checks and how that interacted with the 15-minute time
> allowance and minimum count:
> 1. The first failure condition occurred at 11:36, starting the 15-minute
> clock.
> 2. The second failure condition was at the next check 30 minutes later.
> 3. A rapid succession of checks in the next two minutes pushed the failure
> count up high enough.
> It's possible that the tablets became balanced, and then unbalanced again,
> between steps 1 and 2, so the time allowance was defeated.

Precisely. You could easily have gotten "bad luck" and had some splits 
right before one of these balances checks which pushed you out of 
balance. Diagnosing the "why" here is definitely an annoyance but good 
to do to make sure you didn't stumble on a bug. Typically cross-ref'ing 
the RW logs to the master log is sufficient to figure out what was 

> Anyway, I restarted the randomwalk and it ran successfully for over 24
> hours with agitation.
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Josh Elser <> wrote:
>> 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