Interesting - I think I might have run into that once a whole bunch of
RW runs.
I assume you didn't change the agitation intervals from what's in the
example? The parameters as they stand are, I think, acceptable. Being
unbalanced for that long doesn't seem right. Did you identify why you
were unbalanced?
I'm not sure making that configurable is good either as you're now
skewing one randomwalk test to another (in addition to the variance you
already have from resources available).
Personally, if you run into this, and you can identify that there was a
legitimate reason to be unbalanced across that time and those checks,
I'd be more in favor of just restarting that RW client.
On 2/8/14, 11:50 AM, Bill Havanki wrote:
While running 1.5.1 rc1 through randomwalk I hit a failure in the
Concurrent test due to the tablet servers being "unbalanced". See
ACCUMULO-2198 for some background on the last time I ran into this.
What is the general feeling on dealing with this failure? Is a 15-minute
period too short to wait for balancing, or three consecutive failures too
few to allow? I'm using only a 7-node cluster with 5 tservers, maybe an
unbalanced condition is more tolerable then?
The parameters defining "unbalanced" aren't configurable at the moment, and
I'm inclined to file a JIRA to make them so, to shepherd the test through,
but I'd love to hear what you think about the importance and proper
parameters for this check.
Thanks,
Bill
