accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Josh Elser (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (ACCUMULO-2974) Unable to assign single tablet table migrated to 1.6.0
Date Fri, 04 Jul 2014 04:34:34 GMT


Josh Elser updated ACCUMULO-2974:

    Resolution: Fixed
        Status: Resolved  (was: Patch Available)

All unit and integration tests passed with new patch, new unit tests added which ensures proper
paths are sent to VolumeManager and verified by hand that deleterows on a table with relative
paths in 1.6 actually works.

> Unable to assign single tablet table migrated to 1.6.0
> ------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-2974
>                 URL:
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: master
>    Affects Versions: 1.6.0
>            Reporter: John Vines
>            Assignee: Josh Elser
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 1.6.1, 1.7.0
>         Attachments: 0001-ACCUMULO-2974-Include-the-table-id-when-constructing.patch,
badMetaScan.png, goodMetaScan.png, stackTrace.png
>          Time Spent: 20m
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
> Sorry for the screen caps, no copy/paste from machines.
> Background- several tables migrated from 1.5.1 to 1.6.0. Only one of which was a single
tablet. Upon starting, we noticed that that single table was not loading and the master was
reporting an unassigned tablet. Had a stack trace in the monitor (attached).
> Also attached is a a metadata scan of the table in question (ID: 12). I was able to get
a functional copy of the table by offlining 12 and cloning it. It functioned without issues.
Attached is a copy of it's metadata scan as well (ID: 9o)
> The stack trace leads me to it being a specific issue with the contents of srv:dir, and
the only difference is the relative vs. absolute file names. This cluster was not changed
to multiple namenodes and ../tables/default_tablet does not exist. There are other tables
which still use the relative naming scheme, and the system does not seem to be having issues
with them.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message