crunch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gabriel Reid (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CRUNCH-515) Decrease probability of collision on Crunch temp directories
Date Wed, 06 May 2015 12:42:00 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CRUNCH-515?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14530445#comment-14530445
] 

Gabriel Reid commented on CRUNCH-515:
-------------------------------------

Not replacing the random int with UUIDs sounds fine to me.

As for the issues with shutdown hooks, the main things I can think of with the use of shutdown
hooks in general are:
* I guess this means holding on to a reference to the Pipeline object to the end of the JVM
run, possibly long after it has been run -- is there anything bad that could come from this?
* shutdown hooks only get run when the JVM stops, so a really long-running application that
runs lots of pipelines won't ever have its shutdown hook called

Are there other issues with shutdown hooks that I'm missing?

What are the general shutdown hooks issues that we avoid by only logging something instead
of actually doing the cleanup ourselves in a shutdown hook (I'm sure there are some, but I'm
just not able to think of them right now).

> Decrease probability of collision on Crunch temp directories
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CRUNCH-515
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CRUNCH-515
>             Project: Crunch
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core
>    Affects Versions: 0.8.4, 0.11.0
>            Reporter: Ben Roling
>            Assignee: Josh Wills
>             Fix For: 0.12.0
>
>         Attachments: CRUNCH-515-1.patch
>
>
> I've heard reports of failures of Crunch pipelines at our organization due to collision
on temp directories.
> Take the following stack trace from an old internal email thread I dug up as an example:
> {noformat}
> 2015-04-02 04:45:49,208 INFO org.apache.crunch.hadoop.mapreduce.lib.jobcontrol.CrunchControlledJob:
org.apache.hadoop.mapred.FileAlreadyExistsException: Output directory /tmp/crunch-686245394/p2/output
already exists
>     at org.apache.hadoop.mapreduce.lib.output.FileOutputFormat.checkOutputSpecs(FileOutputFormat.java:132)
>     at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.JobClient$2.run(JobClient.java:1013)
>     at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.JobClient$2.run(JobClient.java:974)
>     at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
>     at javax.security.auth.Subject.doAs(Subject.java:394)
>     at org.apache.hadoop.security.UserGroupInformation.doAs(UserGroupInformation.java:1438)
>     at org.apache.hadoop.mapred.JobClient.submitJobInternal(JobClient.java:974)
>     at org.apache.hadoop.mapreduce.Job.submit(Job.java:582)
>     at org.apache.crunch.hadoop.mapreduce.lib.jobcontrol.CrunchControlledJob.submit(CrunchControlledJob.java:340)
>     at org.apache.crunch.hadoop.mapreduce.lib.jobcontrol.CrunchJobControl.startReadyJobs(CrunchJobControl.java:277)
>     at org.apache.crunch.hadoop.mapreduce.lib.jobcontrol.CrunchJobControl.pollJobStatusAndStartNewOnes(CrunchJobControl.java:316)
>     at org.apache.crunch.impl.mr.exec.MRExecutor.monitorLoop(MRExecutor.java:113)
>     at org.apache.crunch.impl.mr.exec.MRExecutor.access$000(MRExecutor.java:55)
>     at org.apache.crunch.impl.mr.exec.MRExecutor$1.run(MRExecutor.java:84)
>     at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:682)
> {noformat}
> What we found in this case is the pre-existing directory was rather old.  It hung around
because we're doing a poor job of cleaning old garbage out of our HDFS /tmp directory.  We
intend to set up a job to delete stuff older than a couple of weeks or so out of /tmp but
I think the chances of a collision will still be high enough that failures like this might
still happen on occasion.
> The temp directory Crunch chooses is a random 31-bit value:
> https://github.com/apache/crunch/blob/apache-crunch-0.11.0/crunch-core/src/main/java/org/apache/crunch/impl/dist/DistributedPipeline.java#L326
> I say 31 bit value because it comes from a 32-bit random integer but only includes positive
values, thereby excluding 1 bit.
> The following blog post shows some probabilities for 32-bit hash collisions, which are
essentially the same problem:
> http://preshing.com/20110504/hash-collision-probabilities/
> Since we're dealing with 31 bits instead of 32 the probabilities will be higher than
expressed there for 32 bits.  Even with 32 bits the probability of collision is 1 in 100 with
just 9292 values.
> I have not done any thorough investigation to understand why, but in our production environment
we have a lot of Crunch jobs and we are leaving 200-300 stray Crunch temp directories per
day.  Depending on how aggressive we get with a scheduled job to clean old stuff out of temp
we could still have a realistic chance of hitting a collision.
> My proposal is to change the random integer component of the temp path to a UUID or something
similar to make it drastically more unlikely that a collision will ever occur regardless of
whether or not "/tmp" is ever cleaned up.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message