accumulo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dickson, Matt MR" <matt.dick...@defence.gov.au>
Subject RE: Orphaned FATE Locks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
Date Thu, 08 Sep 2016 00:55:50 GMT
UNOFFICIAL

 
In Zookeeper there don't appear to be any locks with the same txid that is listed via Accumulo.
 However under /accumulo/xxxxxxxx/table_locks/+default/ there are the same number of files
as orphaned locks labelled 'lock-000000xx', are these the locks I can delete?  

I should note that while investigating this there were no other fate transactions being listed
by Accumulo for this table, +default, so the system was in a stable state.


-----Original Message-----


From: Josh Elser [mailto:josh.elser@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2016 01:07
To: user@accumulo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Orphaned FATE Locks [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Hi Matt,

What version of Accumulo are you using? Figuring out why those transactions aren't automatically
get removed is something else we would want to look into.

It sounds like these transactions are just vestigial (not actually running), so I wouldn't
think that they would affect current bulk loads.

I believe you could just stop the Master and remove the corresponding nodes in ZooKeeper (as
that's where the txns are stored and `fate print` is reading from), but I would defer to Keith
for confirmation first :)

Dickson, Matt MR wrote:
> *UNOFFICIAL*
>
> When running 'fate print -t IN_PROGRESS' to list fate transactions 
> there are approximately eight orphaned locks listed as:
> txid: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx locked: [R:+default] I'm looking into these 
> because bulk ingests are failing and there are a lot of CopyFailed 
> transactions in the fate lock list. Could these orphaned locks block 
> further bulk ingests and is there a way to kill them?
> When I run 'fate fail xxxxxxxx' it states there is no fate transaction 
> associated with the transaction id.
> Thanks advance,
> Matt

Mime
View raw message