Running fully dist with Hadoop 1.2.1. Retried with 0.94.16 and got the same exception from time to time. So I don't think this will impact the release of 0.94.17. When my PE base line will be done, I will try the same with 0.96 + Hadoop 2.2.0 and see if I get the same exception.
2014-02-16 13:15 GMT-05:00 lars hofhansl <[email protected]>: > Hmm... Do you see this in 0.94.17 only (but not in 0.94.16 or earlier)? > Are you running in local mode or with a real HDFS? > > -- Lars > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <[email protected]> > To: dev <[email protected]> > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29 AM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] The 1st hbase 0.94.17 release candidate is available > for download > > +1 to keep the default behavior. It's very nice to have to option to start > more than one thread but I think for 0.94 we should keep default config. > But also, it's not a big thing. So I will be only -0 for this in the RC. I > agree that it's a bit surprising the see the 3 servers, but not that > dramatic. > > Also I'm getting this once in a while when doing > HFilePerformanceEvaluation: > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.hfile.AbstractHFileReader$NotSeekedException: > Not seeked to a key/value > at > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.hfile.AbstractHFileReader$Scanner.assertSeeked(AbstractHFileReader.java:320) > at > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.io.hfile.HFileReaderV2$ScannerV2.next(HFileReaderV2.java:690) > at > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.HFilePerformanceEvaluation$GaussianRandomReadBenchmark.doRow(HFilePerformanceEvaluation.java:347) > at > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.HFilePerformanceEvaluation$RowOrientedBenchmark.run(HFilePerformanceEvaluation.java:169) > at > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.HFilePerformanceEvaluation.runBenchmark(HFilePerformanceEvaluation.java:121) > at > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.HFilePerformanceEvaluation$3.run(HFilePerformanceEvaluation.java:97) > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744) > > Occured 30% of the time, and only on GaussianRandomReadBenchmark. > > JM > > > > 2014-02-16 2:32 GMT-05:00 Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>: > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:18 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Actually looks like this was by design in HBASE-10340/HBASE-9892. > > > It spawns three local region server threads in local mode now, still > just > > > one process. > > > > > > I now think it's OK. What do other folks think? Should we set the > default > > > back to 1? > > > > > > > I think unannounced things that violate the principle of least surprise > are > > bad. We should sink the RC and set the default back IMO. > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > > > >
