accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Havanki <>
Subject Randomwalk unbalanced servers - still an issue?
Date Sat, 08 Feb 2014 16:50:52 GMT
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.


| - - -
| Bill Havanki
| Solutions Architect, Cloudera Government Solutions
| - - -

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message