accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christopher Tubbs (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 Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:19:00 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3806?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16554055#comment-16554055
] 

Christopher Tubbs commented on ACCUMULO-3806:
---------------------------------------------

I think this makes sense to be a warning. I do not think it should be considered normal to
request creation of already existing named resources. If we have to give it is own logger,
so that users can suppress it in their monitor log config, I think that would be better.

> 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