Patrick:
Attachment didn't go through. 

Cheers

On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Patrick Schless <patrick.schl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Very interesting, I think we may be on to something. I grabbed all the 
> timestamps for major compactions completing and put them on a graph (see 
> attached). Each horizontal line is an individual server, and the dots are 
> when compactions complete. Each server clearly has a cluster of compactions 
> about every 3 hours, and several of the servers are aligned such that they 
> are compacting at the same time.
> 
> Should we be managing these compactions ourselves? Would it make more sense 
> to have them less frequently (but presumably more expensive), or closer 
> together?
> 
> Thanks,
> Patrick
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Bryan Beaudreault <bbeaudrea...@hubspot.com> 
> wrote:
>> Have you taken a look at the logs on the RegionServers during the period?
>> 
>> One possibility is compactions happening organically.  If you were
>> sustaining a certain level of writes most of the time, I could maybe see
>> that every 3 hours enough store files build up to require compactions.
>> 
>> There's nothing else automated in HDFS or HBase that I could see causing
>> this.
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Patrick Schless
>> <patrick.schl...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> 
>> > CDH4.1.2
>> > HBase 0.92.1
>> > HDFS 2.0.0
>> >
>> >
>> > Every 3 hours, our production HBase cluster does something that causes all
>> > the data nodes to have a sustained spike in CPU/network/disk. The spike
>> > lasts about 30 mins, and during this time the cluster has greatly increased
>> > latencies for our typical application usage.
>> >
>> > I can't find anything in our application that would have such a periodic
>> > and significant behavior. Is there anything that HBase/HDFS might be doing
>> > on it's own that would cause this? We're on the default schedule for major
>> > compactions, but I thought that was daily.
>> >
>> > Any ideas what could be causing this?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Patrick
>> >
> 

Reply via email to