cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Stevens <migh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Traffic inconsistent across nodes
Date Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:26:30 GMT
Glad that worked out, that was going to be my next suspicion, since
everything thought it was up and happy, I can't think of a way that
Cassandra and the driver could both consider the cluster happy if some
nodes were not transmitting at least some data (they have to at least for
gossip).

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:02 PM Anishek Agarwal <anishek@gmail.com> wrote:

> Looks like some problem with our monitoring framework. Thanks for you help
> !
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Anishek Agarwal <anishek@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> OS used : Cent OS 6 on all nodes except *10*.125.138.59 ( which runs
>> Cent OS 7)
>> All of them are running Cassandra 2.0.17
>>
>> output of the test :
>>
>> host ip: 10.124.114.113
>>
>> host DC : WDC
>>
>> distance of host: LOCAL
>>
>> host is up: true
>>
>> cassandra version : 2.0.17
>>
>> host ip: 10.124.114.108
>>
>> host DC : WDC
>>
>> distance of host: LOCAL
>>
>> host is up: true
>>
>> cassandra version : 2.0.17
>>
>> host ip: 10.124.114.110
>>
>> host DC : WDC
>>
>> distance of host: LOCAL
>>
>> host is up: true
>>
>> cassandra version : 2.0.17
>>
>> host ip: 10.124.114.118
>>
>> host DC : WDC
>>
>> distance of host: LOCAL
>>
>> host is up: true
>>
>> cassandra version : 2.0.17
>>
>> host ip: 10.125.138.59
>>
>> host DC : WDC
>>
>> distance of host: LOCAL
>>
>> host is up: true
>>
>> cassandra version : 2.0.17
>>
>> host ip: 10.124.114.97
>>
>> host DC : WDC
>>
>> distance of host: LOCAL
>>
>> host is up: true
>>
>> cassandra version : 2.0.17
>>
>> host ip: 10.124.114.105
>>
>> host DC : WDC
>>
>> distance of host: LOCAL
>>
>> host is up: true
>>
>> cassandra version : 2.0.17
>>
>> host ip: 10.124.114.98
>>
>> host DC : WDC
>>
>> distance of host: LOCAL
>>
>> host is up: true
>>
>> cassandra version : 2.0.17
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Eric Stevens <mightye@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for that, that helps a lot.  The next thing to check might be
>>> whether or not your application actually has access to the other nodes.
>>> With that topology, and assuming all the nodes you included in your
>>> original graph are in the 'WDC' data center, I'd be inclined to look for a
>>> network issue of some kind.
>>>
>>> Also, it probably doesn't matter, but what OS / Distribution are you
>>> running the servers and clients on?
>>>
>>> Check with netcat or something that you can reach all the configured
>>> ports from your application server, but also the driver itself offers some
>>> introspection into its view of individual connection health.  This is a
>>> little bit ugly, but this is how we include information about connection
>>> status in an API for health monitoring from a Scala application using the
>>> Java driver; hopefully you can use it to see how to access information
>>> about the driver's view of host health from the application's perspective.
>>> Most importantly I'd suggest looking for host.isUp status and
>>> LoadBalancingPolicy.distance(host) to see that it considers all the hosts
>>> in your target datacenter to be LOCAL.
>>>
>>> "hosts" -> {
>>>   val hosts: Map[String, Map[String, mutable.Set[Host]]] =
>>>     connection.getMetadata
>>>       .getAllHosts.asScala
>>>       .groupBy(_.getDatacenter)
>>>       .mapValues(_.groupBy(_.getRack))
>>>   val lbp: LoadBalancingPolicy = connection.getConfiguration.getPolicies.getLoadBalancingPolicy
>>>   JsObject(hosts.map { case (dc: String, rackAndHosts) =>
>>>     dc -> JsObject(rackAndHosts.map { case (rack: String, hosts: mutable.Set[Host])
=>
>>>       rack -> JsArray(hosts.map { host =>
>>>         Json.obj(
>>>           "address"          -> host.getAddress.toString,
>>>           "socketAddress"    -> host.getSocketAddress.toString,
>>>           "cassandraVersion" -> host.getCassandraVersion.toString,
>>>           "isUp"             -> host.isUp,
>>>           "hostDistance"     -> lbp.distance(host).toString
>>>         )
>>>       }.toSeq)
>>>     }.toSeq)
>>>   }.toSeq)
>>> },
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:50 PM Anishek Agarwal <anishek@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> here is the output:  every node in a single DC is in the same rack.
>>>>
>>>> Datacenter: WDC5
>>>>
>>>> ================
>>>>
>>>> Status=Up/Down
>>>>
>>>> |/ State=Normal/Leaving/Joining/Moving
>>>>
>>>> --  Address         Load       Tokens  Owns (effective)  Host ID
>>>>                         Rack
>>>>
>>>> UN  10.125.138.33   299.22 GB  256     64.2%
>>>> 8aaa6015-d444-4551-a3c5-3257536df476  RAC1
>>>>
>>>> UN  10.125.138.125  329.38 GB  256     70.3%
>>>> 70be44a2-de17-41f1-9d3a-6a0be600eedf  RAC1
>>>>
>>>> UN  10.125.138.129  305.11 GB  256     65.5%
>>>> 0fbc7f44-7062-4996-9eba-2a05ae1a7032  RAC1
>>>>
>>>> Datacenter: WDC
>>>>
>>>> ===============
>>>>
>>>> Status=Up/Down
>>>>
>>>> |/ State=Normal/Leaving/Joining/Moving
>>>>
>>>> --  Address         Load       Tokens  Owns (effective)  Host ID
>>>>                         Rack
>>>>
>>>> UN  10.124.114.105  151.09 GB  256     38.0%
>>>> c432357d-bf81-4eef-98e1-664c178a3c23  RAC1
>>>>
>>>> UN  10.124.114.110  150.15 GB  256     36.9%
>>>> 6f92d32e-1c64-4145-83d7-265c331ea408  RAC1
>>>>
>>>> UN  10.124.114.108  170.1 GB   256     41.3%
>>>> 040ae7e5-3f1e-4874-8738-45edbf576e12  RAC1
>>>>
>>>> UN  10.124.114.98   165.34 GB  256     37.6%
>>>> cdc69c7d-b9d6-4abd-9388-1cdcd35d946c  RAC1
>>>>
>>>> UN  10.124.114.113  145.22 GB  256     35.7%
>>>> 1557af04-e658-4751-b984-8e0cdc41376e  RAC1
>>>>
>>>> UN  10.125.138.59   162.65 GB  256     38.6%
>>>> 9ba1b7b6-5655-456e-b1a1-6f429750fc96  RAC1
>>>>
>>>> UN  10.124.114.97   164.03 GB  256     36.9%
>>>> c918e497-498e-44c3-ab01-ab5cb4d48b09  RAC1
>>>>
>>>> UN  10.124.114.118  139.62 GB  256     35.1%
>>>> 2bb0c265-a5d4-4cd4-8f50-13b5a9a891c9  RAC1
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Eric Stevens <mightye@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The output of nodetool status would really help answer some
>>>>> questions.  I take it the 8 hosts in your graph are in the same DC. 
Are
>>>>> the four serving writes in the same logical or physical rack (as Cassandra
>>>>> sees it), while the others are not?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:48 PM Anishek Agarwal <anishek@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We have two DC one with the above 8 nodes and other with 3 nodes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Eric Stevens <mightye@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe include nodetool status here?  Are the four nodes serving
>>>>>>> reads in one DC (local to your driver's config) while the others
are in
>>>>>>> another?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 1:01 AM Anishek Agarwal <anishek@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> we have 8 nodes in one cluster and attached is the traffic
patterns
>>>>>>>> across the nodes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> its very surprising that only 4 nodes show transmitting (purple)
>>>>>>>> packets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> our driver configuration on clients has the following load
>>>>>>>> balancing configuration  :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> new TokenAwarePolicy(
>>>>>>>>         new DCAwareRoundRobinPolicy(configuration.get(Constants.LOCAL_DATA_CENTRE_NAME,
"WDC")),
>>>>>>>>         true)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> any idea what is that we are missing which is leading to
this
>>>>>>>> skewed data read patterns
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> cassandra drivers as below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <dependency>
>>>>>>>>     <groupId>com.datastax.cassandra</groupId>
>>>>>>>>     <artifactId>cassandra-driver-core</artifactId>
>>>>>>>>     <version>2.1.6</version>
>>>>>>>> </dependency>
>>>>>>>> <dependency>
>>>>>>>>     <groupId>com.datastax.cassandra</groupId>
>>>>>>>>     <artifactId>cassandra-driver-mapping</artifactId>
>>>>>>>>     <version>2.1.6</version>
>>>>>>>> </dependency>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> cassandra version is 2.0.17
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance for the help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anishek
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message