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-3806) Failing to create a table/namespace because it already exists should not be a warning
Date Mon, 23 Jul 2018 16:17:00 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3806?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16553056#comment-16553056
] 

Josh Elser commented on ACCUMULO-3806:
--------------------------------------

{quote}I'm not sure that I agree with this
{quote}
Yeah, doesn't strike me as the right way to solve this.

Totally right that this isn't an actionable warning/error – and we know that there are situations
in which this is completely expected to happen. If you remove the thrown exception, the client
is probably not going to get the correct response (e.g. think that its table creation succeeded
which is totally wrong).

My take on an improvement would be to suppress the monitor warning IFF we know that this exact
table was already created.

> Failing to create a table/namespace because it already exists should not be a warning
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-3806
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3806
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: fate
>            Reporter: Josh Elser
>            Priority: Major
>              Labels: newbie
>             Fix For: 2.0.0
>
>         Attachments: 0001-ACCUMULO-3806-changed-checkTableDoesNotExist-in-accu.patch
>
>
> This is a really common occurrence when you're running randomwalk:
> {noformat}
> Failed to execute Repo, tid=63d0421f1b17b04a
> 	ThriftTableOperationException(tableId:null, tableName:nspc_001.ctt_000, op:CREATE, type:EXISTS,
description:null)
> 		at org.apache.accumulo.master.tableOps.Utils.checkTableDoesNotExist(Utils.java:54)
> 		at org.apache.accumulo.master.tableOps.PopulateZookeeper.call(PopulateZookeeper.java:54)
> 		at org.apache.accumulo.master.tableOps.PopulateZookeeper.call(PopulateZookeeper.java:30)
> 		at org.apache.accumulo.master.tableOps.TraceRepo.call(TraceRepo.java:57)
> 		at org.apache.accumulo.fate.Fate$TransactionRunner.run(Fate.java:72)
> 		at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145)
> 		at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
> 		at org.apache.accumulo.fate.util.LoggingRunnable.run(LoggingRunnable.java:35)
> 		at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
> {noformat}
> Concurrent table creations run: only one succeeds and the others fail. This is expected
and what FATE was designed to handle. We shouldn't be pushing these up to the monitor -- should
probably be a info or debug message.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Mime
View raw message