accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Josh Elser (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-2990) BatchWriter never unsets somethingFailed
Date Fri, 11 Jul 2014 20:33:05 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2990?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14059306#comment-14059306
] 

Josh Elser commented on ACCUMULO-2990:
--------------------------------------

[~ecn] just noticed that there's a hardcoded reference to accumulo.metadata in the BatchWriter
for authorization errors:

{noformat}
updateAuthorizationFailures(Collections.singletonMap(new KeyExtent(new Text(Constants.METADATA_TABLE_ID),
null, null),
            SecurityErrorCode.valueOf(e.getSecurityErrorCode().name())));
{noformat}

This probably explains why I was seeing the inexplicable metadata table name in the error
message in the description.

> BatchWriter never unsets somethingFailed
> ----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-2990
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2990
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: client
>    Affects Versions: 1.5.1, 1.6.0
>            Reporter: Josh Elser
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 1.5.2, 1.6.1, 1.7.0
>
>
> In trying to understand what's happening in ACCUMULO-2964, I noticed that I had similar
exceptions from two different threads. One of the threads starting working after the unexplained
thrift exceptions from a tserver restart, and the other continued to repeatedly fail for the
lifetime of the test.
> I repeatedly saw this exception: 
> {noformat}
> 2014-07-11 04:14:41,591 [replication.WorkMaker] WARN : Failed to write work mutations
for replication, will retry
> org.apache.accumulo.core.client.MutationsRejectedException: # constraint violations :
0  security codes: {accumulo.metadata(ID:!0)=[DEFAULT_SECURITY_ERROR]}  # server errors 0
# exceptions 0
>         at org.apache.accumulo.core.client.impl.TabletServerBatchWriter.checkForFailures(TabletServerBatchWriter.java:537)
>         at org.apache.accumulo.core.client.impl.TabletServerBatchWriter.addMutation(TabletServerBatchWriter.java:249)
>         at org.apache.accumulo.core.client.impl.BatchWriterImpl.addMutation(BatchWriterImpl.java:45)
>         at org.apache.accumulo.master.replication.WorkMaker.addWorkRecord(WorkMaker.java:184)
>         at org.apache.accumulo.master.replication.WorkMaker.run(WorkMaker.java:124)
>         at org.apache.accumulo.master.replication.ReplicationDriver.run(ReplicationDriver.java:91)
> {noformat}
> The part that struck me as odd was that the BatchWriter wasn't against the metadata table,
but the replication table.
> I looked into the TabletServerBatchWriter. It appears that once the client sees a MutationsRejectedException,
that BatchWriter becomes useless as the internal member {{somethingFailed}} is never reset
back to {{false}} after the failure is reported. Same goes for {{serverSideErrors}}, {{unknownErrors}},
{{lastUnknownErrors}}, too.
> If this is the case, this is a bug because the BatchWriter should be resilient in this
regard and not force the client to create a new Instance. If that's infeasible to do, we should
add exceptions to the BatchWriter that fail fast when a BatchWriter is used that will report
repeatedly report the same failure over and over again.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Mime
View raw message