accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com>
Subject Re: Interesting bug report
Date Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:51:56 GMT
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:59 AM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:

> Of course, it's when I hit send that I realize that we could mitigate by
> making the client aware of the master state, and if the system is shut down
>

Thats a good idea.  Should consider the use case when someone wants to shut
Accumulo down and bring it back up immediately.  We could allow an admin to
decide what they want clients to do when they shutdown Accumulo (clients
die, wait, anything else?).  This could be accomplished with supplemental
information in ZK or other goal states.


> (which was the case for that ticket), then it can fail quickly with a
> descriptive message.
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:58 AM John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > While we want to be fault tolerant, there's a point where we want to
> > eventually fail. I know we have a couple never ending retry loops that
> need
> > to be addressed (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1268),
> > but I'm unsure if queries suffer from this problem.
> >
> > Unfortunately, fault tolerance is a bit at odds with instant notification
> > of system issues, since some of the fault tolerance is temporally
> oriented.
> > And that ticket lacks context of it never failing out vs. failing out
> > eventually (but too long for the user)
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 7:46 PM Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I saw this bug report:
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300987
> >>
> >> As far as I can tell, they are reporting normal, expected, and desired
> >> behavior of Accumulo as a bug. But, is there something we can do
> upstream
> >> to enable fast failures in the case of Accumulo not running to support
> >> their use case?
> >>
> >> Personally, I don't see how we can reliably detect within the client
> that
> >> the cluster is down or up, vs. a normal temporary server
> outage/migration,
> >> since there is there is no single point of authority for Accumulo to
> >> determine its overall operating status if ZooKeeper is running and no
> >> other
> >> servers are. Am I wrong?
> >>
> >
>

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