hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Schless <patrick.schl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Replication - some timestamps off by 1 ms
Date Thu, 11 Jul 2013 19:19:58 GMT
It's possible, but I'm not sure. This is a live system, and we do use
increment, and it's a smaller portion of our writes into HBase. I can try
to duplicate it, but I can't say how these specific cells got written.

Would incremented cells not get replicated correctly?


On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcryans@apache.org>wrote:

> Are those incremented cells?
>
> J-D
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Patrick Schless
> <patrick.schless@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have had replication running for about a week now, and have had a lot
> of
> > data flowing to our slave cluster over that time. Now, I'm running the
> > verifyrep MR job over a 1-hour period a couple days ago (which should be
> > fully replicated), and I'm seeing a small number of "BADROWS".
> > Spot-checking a few of them, the issue seems to be that the rows are
> > present, and have the same values, but a single cell in the row will be
> off
> > by 1ms.
> >
> > For instance, the log reports this error:
> > java.lang.Exception: This result was different:
> >
> keyvalues={01e581745c6a43aba01adf105af4e4a92013071015/data:!\xDF\xE0\x01/1373470622986/Put/vlen=8,
> >
> 01e581745c6a43aba01adf105af4e4a92013071015/data:&s\xC0\x01/1373470923084/Put/vlen=8,
> >
> 01e581745c6a43aba01adf105af4e4a92013071015/data:+\x07\xA0\x01/1373471223717/Put/vlen=8,
> >
> 01e581745c6a43aba01adf105af4e4a92013071015/data:/\x9B\x80\x01/1373471523316/Put/vlen=8,
> >
> 01e581745c6a43aba01adf105af4e4a92013071015/data:4/`\x01/1373471822913/Put/vlen=8}
> > compared to
> >
> keyvalues={01e581745c6a43aba01adf105af4e4a92013071015/data:!\xDF\xE0\x01/1373470622986/Put/vlen=8,
> >
> 01e581745c6a43aba01adf105af4e4a92013071015/data:&s\xC0\x01/1373470923084/Put/vlen=8,
> >
> 01e581745c6a43aba01adf105af4e4a92013071015/data:+\x07\xA0\x01/1373471223716/Put/vlen=8,
> >
> 01e581745c6a43aba01adf105af4e4a92013071015/data:/\x9B\x80\x01/1373471523316/Put/vlen=8,
> >
> 01e581745c6a43aba01adf105af4e4a92013071015/data:4/`\x01/1373471822913/Put/vlen=8}
> >
> > Some diffing reduces the issue down to:
> >
> 01e581745c6a43aba01adf105af4e4a92013071015/data:+\x07\xA0\x01/1373471223717/Put/vlen=8
> > compared to
> >
> 01e581745c6a43aba01adf105af4e4a92013071015/data:+\x07\xA0\x01/1373471223716/Put/vlen=8.
> >
> > I'm assuming that the value before "/Put" is the cell's timestamp, which
> > means that the copies are off by 1ms.
> >
> > Any idea what could cause this? So far (the job is still running), the
> > problem seems rare (about 0.05% of rows).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Patrick
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message