cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mina Naguib <mina.nag...@bloomdigital.com>
Subject Re: Peculiar imbalance affecting 2 machines in a 6 node cluster
Date Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:45:21 GMT

Hi Aaron

Thank you very much for the reply and the pointers to the previous list discussions.  The
second was was particularly telling.

I'm happy to say that the problem is fixed, and it's so trivial it's quite embarrassing -
but I'll state it here for the sake of the archives.

There was an extra semicolon in the topology file in the line defining IPLA3.  It's just as
visible in my prod config as it is in my example below ;-)

I'm guessing the parser splits <dc, rack> tuples on (":"), so it probably parsed the
IPLA3 entry as "DCLA" , ":RAC1" (which is different than the others on "RAC1"), and so the
NTS did its thing distributing evenly between racks, and IPLA3 got more of the data and IPLA2
got less.

I''ve fixed it, and the reads/s and writes/s immediately equalized.  I'm now doing a round
of repairs/compactions/cleanups to equalize the data load as well.

Unfortunately It's not easy in cassandra 0.7.8 to actually see the parsed topology state (unlike
0.8's nice ring output which shows the DC and rack), so I'm ashamed to say it took much longer
than it should've to troubleshoot.

Thanks for your help.


On 2011-08-10, at 5:12 AM, aaron morton wrote:

> WRT the load imbalance checking the basics: you've run cleanup after any tokens moves?
Repair is running ?  Also sometimes nodes get a bit bloated from repair and will settle down
with compaction. 
> 
> Your slightly odd tokens in the MTL DC are making it a little tricky to understand whats
going on. But I'm trying to check if you've followed the multi DC token selection here  http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/Operations#Token_selection
. Background about what can happen in a multi dc deployment if the tokens are not right http://cassandra-user-incubator-apache-org.3065146.n2.nabble.com/Replica-data-distributing-between-racks-td6324819.html
> 
> This is what you currently haveā€¦.
> 
> DC:LA
> IPLA1           Up     Normal  34.57 GB        11.11%  0                            
              
> IPLA2           Up     Normal  17.55 GB        11.11%  56713727820156410577229101238628035242
     
> IPLA3           Up     Normal  51.37 GB        11.11%  113427455640312821154458202477256070485
    
> 
> DC: MTL
> IPMTL1          Up     Normal  34.43 GB        22.22%  37809151880104273718152734159085356828
     
> IPMTL2          Up     Normal  34.56 GB        22.22%  94522879700260684295381835397713392071
     
> IPMTL3          Up     Normal  34.71 GB        22.22%  151236607520417094872610936636341427313
  
> 
> Using the bump approach you would have 
> 
> IPLA1	0     
> IPLA2   	56713727820156410577229101238628035242    
> IPLA3	113427455640312821154458202477256070484     
> 
> IPMTL1	1           
> IPMTL2	56713727820156410577229101238628035243          
> IPMTL3	113427455640312821154458202477256070485          
> 
> Using the interleaving you would have 
> 
> IPLA1 	0
> IPMTL1 	28356863910078205288614550619314017621
> IPLA2 	56713727820156410577229101238628035242
> IPMTL2 	85070591730234615865843651857942052863
> IPLA3 	113427455640312821154458202477256070484
> IPMTL3 	141784319550391026443072753096570088105
> 
> The current setup in LA give each node in LA 33% of the LA local ring. Which should be
right, just checking.  
> 
> If cleanup / repair / compaction is all good and you are confident the tokens are right
try poking around with nodetool getendpoints to see which nodes keys are sent to.  Like you
I cannot see anything obvious in NTS that would cause load to be imbalanced if they are all
in the same rack. 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> -----------------
> Aaron Morton
> Freelance Cassandra Developer
> @aaronmorton
> http://www.thelastpickle.com
> 
> On 10 Aug 2011, at 11:24, Mina Naguib wrote:
> 
>> Hi everyone
>> 
>> I'm observing a very peculiar type of imbalance and I'd appreciate any help or ideas
to try.  This is on cassandra 0.7.8.
>> 
>> The original cluster was 3 machines in the DCMTL, equally balanced at 33.33% each
and each holding roughly 34G.
>> 
>> Then, I added to it 3 machines in the LA data center.  The ring is currently as follows
(IP addresses redacted for clarity):
>> 
>> Address         Status State   Load            Owns    Token                    
                  
>>                                                       151236607520417094872610936636341427313
    
>> IPLA1           Up     Normal  34.57 GB        11.11%  0                        
                  
>> IPMTL1          Up     Normal  34.43 GB        22.22%  37809151880104273718152734159085356828
     
>> IPLA2           Up     Normal  17.55 GB        11.11%  56713727820156410577229101238628035242
     
>> IPMTL2          Up     Normal  34.56 GB        22.22%  94522879700260684295381835397713392071
     
>> IPLA3           Up     Normal  51.37 GB        11.11%  113427455640312821154458202477256070485
    
>> IPMTL3          Up     Normal  34.71 GB        22.22%  151236607520417094872610936636341427313
    
>> 
>> The bump in the 3 MTL nodes (22.22%) is in anticipation of 3 more machines in yet
another data center, but they're not ready yet to join the cluster.  Once that third DC joins
all nodes will be at 11.11%. However, I don't think this is related.
>> 
>> The problem I'm currently observing is visible in the LA machines, specifically IPLA2
and IPLA3.  IPLA2 has 50% the expected volume, and IPLA3 has 150% the expected volume.
>> 
>> Putting their load side by side shows the peculiar ratio of 2:1:3 between the 3 LA
nodes:
>> 34.57 17.55 51.37
>> (the same 2:1:3 ratio is reflected in our internal tools trending reads/second and
writes/second)
>> 
>> I've tried several iterations of compactions/cleanups to no avail.  In terms of config
this is the main keyspace:
>>  Replication Strategy: org.apache.cassandra.locator.NetworkTopologyStrategy
>>    Options: [DCMTL:2, DCLA:2]
>> And this is the cassandra-topology.properties file (IPs again redacted for clarity):
>>  IPMTL1:DCMTL:RAC1
>>  IPMTL2:DCMTL:RAC1
>>  IPMTL3:DCMTL:RAC1
>>  IPLA1:DCLA:RAC1
>>  IPLA2:DCLA:RAC1
>>  IPLA3:DCLA::RAC1
>>  IPLON1:DCLON:RAC1
>>  IPLON2:DCLON:RAC1
>>  IPLON3:DCLON:RAC1
>>  # default for unknown nodes
>>  default=DCBAD:RACBAD
>> 
>> 
>> One thing that did occur to me while reading the source code for the NetworkTopologyStrategy's
calculateNaturalEndpoints is that it prefers placing data on different racks.  Since all my
machines are defined as in the same rack, I believe that the 2-pass approach would still yield
balanced placement.
>> 
>> However, just to test, I modified live the topology file to specify that IPLA1, IPLA2
and IPLA3 are in 3 different racks, and sure enough I saw immediately that the reads/second
and writes/second equalized to expected fair volume (I quickly reverted that change).
>> 
>> So, it seems somehow related to rack awareness, but I've been raking my head and
I can't figure out how/why, or why the three MTL machines are not affected the same way.
>> 
>> If the solution is to specify them in different racks and run repair on everything,
I'm okay with that - but I hate doing that without first understanding *why* the current behavior
is the way it is.
>> 
>> Any ideas would be hugely appreciated.
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message