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 Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:08:06 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CRUNCH-515?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14963441#comment-14963441
] 

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

My initial feeling is that this pattern is not strictly correct, although I'm pretty sure
it's used all over the place in the integration tests (and possibly used elsewhere as well),
so it might not be wrong enough to disallow it now.

Looking at your patch, it seems as though this NPE could be resolved by just not nulling out
the tempDirectory member variable. Of course, this would make the finalize much heavier-weight
for everyone that has already called cleanup.

Maybe another idea is to just instantiate a new temporary directory path in {{createTempPath()}}
if it's been nulled out. In the integration test code you posted above, I would say that anyone
using the above pattern should at least call pipeline.done() after doing something new with
the pipeline.



> 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
>         Attachments: CRUNCH-515-1.patch, CRUNCH_515.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