accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jayesh Patel <>
Subject RE: Fwd: why compaction failure on one table brings other tables offline, how to recover
Date Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:52:38 GMT
There really aren't a lot of log messages that can explain why tablets for other tables went
offline except the following:

2016-04-11 13:32:18,258 [tserver.TabletServerResourceManager$AssignmentWatcher] WARN : tserver:instance-accumulo-3
Assignment for 2<< has been running for at least 973455566ms
java.lang.Exception: Assignment of 2<<
    at sun.misc.Unsafe.park(Native Method)
    at java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.park(Unknown Source)
    at java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.parkAndCheckInterrupt(Unknown
    at java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.acquireQueued(Unknown Source)
    at java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.acquire(Unknown Source)
    at java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock$FairSync.lock(Unknown Source)
    at java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock.lock(Unknown Source)
    at org.apache.accumulo.tserver.TabletServer.acquireRecoveryMemory(
    at org.apache.accumulo.tserver.TabletServer.access$2600(
    at org.apache.accumulo.tserver.TabletServer$
    at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(Unknown Source)
    at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$ Source)
    at Source)

Table 2<< here doesn't have the issue with minc failing and so shouldn’t be offline.
 These messages happened on a restart of a tserver if that offers any clues.  All the nodes
were rebooted at that time due to a power failure.  I'm assuming that it's tablet went offline
soon after this message first appeared in the logs.

Other tidbit of note is that the Accumulo operates for hours/days without taking the tablets
offline even though minc is failing and it's the crash of a tserver due to OutOfMemory situation
in one case that seems to have taken the tablet offline.  Is it safe to assume that other
tservers are not able to pick up the tablets that are failing minc from a crashed tserver?

-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Elser [] 
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: why compaction failure on one table brings other tables offline, how to

Billie Rinaldi wrote:
> *From:* Jayesh Patel
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 07, 2016 4:36 PM
> *To:* ' <>'
> < <>>
> *Subject:* RE: why compaction failure on one table brings other tables 
> offline, how to recover____
> __ __
> I have a 3 node Accumulo 1.7 cluster with a few small tables (few MB 
> in size at most).____
> __ __
> I had one of those table fail minc because I had configured a 
> SummingCombiner with FIXEDLEN but had smaller values:____
> MinC failed (trying to convert to long, but byte array isn't long 
> enough, wanted 8 found 1) to create 
> hdfs://instance-accumulo:8020/accumulo/tables/1/default_tablet/F0002bc
> s.rf_tmp
> retrying ...____
> __ __
> I have learned since to set the ‘lossy’ parameter to true to avoid this.
> *Why is the default value for it false* if it can cause catastrophic 
> failure that you’ll read about ahead.____

I'm pretty sure I told you this on StackOverflow, but if you're not writing 8-byte long values,
don't used FIXEDLEN. Use VARLEN instead.

> However, this brought other the tablets for other tables offline 
> without any apparent errors or warnings. *Can someone please explain 
> why?*____

Can you provide logs? We are not wizards :)

> In order to recover from this, I did a ‘droptable’ from the shell on 
> the affected tables, but they all got stuck in the ‘DELETING’ state.  
> I was able to finally delete them using zkcli ‘rmr’ command. *Is there 
> a better way?____*

Again, not sure why they would have gotten stuck in the deleting phase without more logs/context
(nor how far along in the deletion process they got). It's possible that there were still
entries in the accumulo.metadata table.

> I’m assuming there is a more proper way because when I created the 
> tables again (with the same name), they went back to having a single 
> offline tablet right away. *Is this because there are “traces” of the 
> old table left behind that affect the new table even though the new 
> table has a different table id?*  I ended up wiping out hdfs and 
> recreating the accumulo instance. ____

Accumulo uses monotonically increasing IDs to identify tables. The human-readable names are
only there for your benefit. Creating a table with the same name would not cause a problem.
It sounds like you got the metadata table in a bad state or have tabletservers in a bad state
(if you haven't restarted them).

> It seems that a small bug, writing 1 byte value instead of 8 bytes, 
> caused us to dump the whole accumulo instance.  Luckily the data 
> wasn’t that important, but this whole episode makes us wonder why 
> doing things the right way (assuming there is a right way) wasn’t 
> obvious or if Accumulo is just very fragile.____

Causing Accumulo to be unable to flush data from memory to disk in a minor compaction is a
very bad idea. One that we cannot automatically recover from because of the combiner configuration
you set.

If you can provide logs and stack traces from the Accumulo services, we can try to help you
further. This is not normal. If you don't believe me, take a look at the distributed tests
we run each release where we write hundreds of gigabytes of data across many servers while
randomly killing Accumulo processes.

> Please ask away any questions/clarification you might have. We’ll 
> appreciate any input you might have so we make educated decisions 
> about using Accumulo going forward.____
> __ __
> Thank you,____
> Jayesh____

View raw message