crunch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sean Owen (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CRUNCH-515) Decrease probability of collision on Crunch temp directories
Date Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:50:05 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CRUNCH-515?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14963495#comment-14963495
] 

Sean Owen commented on CRUNCH-515:
----------------------------------

Yeah, I noticed that setConfiguration() causes a temp dir to be "leaked" and fixed it too
in this patch, though that could be fixed separately. It could help but is not the underlying
issue.

If nulling the tempDirectory causes a problem then it means something is using the pipeline
after it is done() -- like this unit test. Is that intended? (Maybe [~joshwills] can weigh
in.) If Pipeline is meant to be merely reusable then yes I agree it should re-create a temp
directory if none exists.

Right now it does cause a bunch of warnings to be logged since indeed lots of the tests don't
call done(). I don't know whether that's worth fixing, or a reason to punt on this, in favor
of the two smaller changes here -- 64-bit random value in dir name; fixing the setConfiguration()
leak.

> 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