Jeff, If I understand the issue correctly, this means NiFi 1.x has always been broken for clustering with an embedded ZooKeeper. That has never communicated until now, we clearly build for and explain how to use an embedded ZooKeeper in documentation.
Any external non-NiFi elements that are considered in design and dependency decisions need to be clearly understood by the entire community. What things non-NiFi are you thinking of that drive ZooKeeper dependencies? Joe On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark, we can certainly take smaller steps rather than waiting for > 3.5.2/3.6.0 to come out. I was just bringing that JIRA up as another > scenario that entices us to upgrade. > > Joe, I'm referring to NiFi, the toolkit, and things non-NiFi that provide a > ZK server to which NiFi or the ZK Migration Toolkit are clients. I'm not > saying we can't or shouldn't upgrade, but we do need to test to make sure > that no issues are introduced by NiFi shipping with ZK 3.4.10. Being that > it's a bugfix version change, it's probably fine. > > - Jeff > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:46 AM Joe Skora <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Jeff, > > > > Does that mean NiFi 1.x will be unstable when using embedded ZooKeeper > > until the ZK version is upgrade? > > > > By "components outside of NiFi" do you mean the NiFi toolkit and other > > parts of the NiFi release? > > > > Joe > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:42 AM, Jeff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Mark, > > > > > > I did report a JIRA [1] for upgrading to 3.5.2 or 3.6.0 (just due to > > log4j > > > issues) once it's out and stable, There are issues with the way that ZK > > > refers to log4j classes in the code that cause issues for NiFi and our > > > Toolkit.. However there has been some back and forth [2] (in 3.4.0, > > which > > > doesn't fix the issue, but moves towards fixing it), [3], and [4] on > the > > > changes being implemented in versions 3.5.2 and 3.6.0. Also, it looks > > like > > > ZK 3.6.0 is headed toward using log4j 2 [5]. > > > > > > There are many components outside of NiFi that are still using ZK > 3.4.6, > > so > > > it may be a while before we can move to 3.4.10. I don't currently know > > > anything about the forward compatibility of 3.4.6. Are there > > > improvements/fixes in 3.4.10 which you need? > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3067 > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-850 > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1371 > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2393 > > > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2342 > > > > > > - Jeff > > > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:15 AM Mark Bean <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Updated to external ZooKeeper last Friday. Over the weekend, there > are > > no > > > > reports of SUSPENDED or RECONNECTED. > > > > > > > > Are there plans to upgrade the embedded ZooKeeper to the latest > > version, > > > > 3.4.10? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > looked at a secured cluster and the send times are routinely at > 100ms > > > > > similar to yours. I think what i was flagging as potentially > > > > > interesting is not interesting at all. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Ok. Well as a point of comparison i'm looking at heartbeat logs > > from > > > > > > another cluster and the times are consistently 1-3 millis for the > > > > > > send. Yours above show 100+ms typical with one north of 900ms. > > Not > > > > > > sure how relevant that is but something i noticed. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Mark Bean < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> ping shows acceptably fast response time between servers, > > > > approximately > > > > > >> 0.100-0.150 ms > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> have you evaluated latency across the machines in your cluster? > > I > > > > ask > > > > > >>> because 122ms is pretty long and 917ms is very long. Are these > > > nodes > > > > > >>> across a WAN link? > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Mark Bean < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> > Update: now all 5 nodes, regardless of ZK server, are > > indicating > > > > > >>> SUSPENDED > > > > > >>> > -> RECONNECTED. > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Mark Bean < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> >> I reduced the number of embedded ZooKeeper servers on the > > 5-Node > > > > > NiFi > > > > > >>> >> Cluster from 5 to 3. This has improved the situation. I do > not > > > see > > > > > any > > > > > >>> of > > > > > >>> >> the three Nodes which are also ZK servers > > > > > disconnecting/reconnecting to > > > > > >>> the > > > > > >>> >> cluster as before. However, the two Nodes which are not > > running > > > ZK > > > > > >>> continue > > > > > >>> >> to disconnect and reconnect. The following is taken from one > > of > > > > the > > > > > >>> non-ZK > > > > > >>> >> Nodes. It's curious that some messages are issued twice from > > the > > > > > same > > > > > >>> >> thread, but reference a different object > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> nifi-app.log > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:40:01,628 INFO [main-EventTrhead] > o.a.c.f.state. > > > > > >>> ConnectionStateManager > > > > > >>> >> State change: SUSPENDED > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:39:45,627 INFO [Clustering Tasks Thread-1] > > > > o.a.n.c.c. > > > > > >>> ClusterProtocolHeaertbeater > > > > > >>> >> Heartbeat create at 2017-05-25 13:39:45,504 and sent to > > > FQDN:PORT > > > > at > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:39:45,627; send took 122 millis > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:39:50,862 INFO [Clustering Tasks Thread-1] > > > > o.a.n.c.c. > > > > > >>> ClusterProtocolHeaertbeater > > > > > >>> >> Heartbeat create at 2017-05-25 13:39:50,732 and sent to > > > FQDN:PORT > > > > at > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:39:50,862; send took 122 millis > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:39:56,089 INFO [Clustering Tasks Thread-1] > > > > o.a.n.c.c. > > > > > >>> ClusterProtocolHeaertbeater > > > > > >>> >> Heartbeat create at 2017-05-25 13:39:55,966 and sent to > > > FQDN:PORT > > > > at > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:39:56,089; send took 129 millis > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:40:01,629 INFO > > [Curator-ConnectionStateManager-0] > > > > > >>> >> o.a.n.c.l.e.CuratorLeaderElectionManager > > > > > org.apache.nifi.controller. > > > > > >>> >> leader.election.CuratorLeaderElectionManager$ > > > > > ElectionListener@68f8b6a2 > > > > > >>> >> Connection State changed to SUSPENDED > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:40:01,629 INFO > > [Curator-ConnectionStateManager-0] > > > > > >>> >> o.a.n.c.l.e.CuratorLeaderElectionManager > > > > > org.apache.nifi.controller. > > > > > >>> >> leader.election.CuratorLeaderElectionManager$ > > > > > ElectionListener@663f55cd > > > > > >>> >> Connection State changed to SUSPENDED > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:40:02,412 INFO [main-EventThread] > o.a.c.f.state. > > > > > >>> ConnectinoStateManager > > > > > >>> >> State change: RECONNECTED > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:40:02,413 INFO > > [Curator-ConnectionStateManager-0] > > > > > >>> >> o.a.n.c.l.e.CuratorLeaderElectionManager > > > > > org.apache.nifi.controller. > > > > > >>> >> leader.election.CuratorLeaderElectionManager$ > > > > > ElectionListener@68f8b6a2 > > > > > >>> >> Connection State changed to RECONNECTED > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:40:02,413 INFO > > [Curator-ConnectionStateManager-0] > > > > > >>> >> o.a.n.c.l.e.CuratorLeaderElectionManager > > > > > org.apache.nifi.controller. > > > > > >>> >> leader.election.CuratorLeaderElectionManager$ > > > > > ElectionListener@663f55cd > > > > > >>> >> Connection State changed to RECONNECTED > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:40:02,550 INFO [Clustering Tasks Thread-1] > > > > o.a.n.c.c. > > > > > >>> ClusterProtocolHeaertbeater > > > > > >>> >> Heartbeat create at 2017-05-25 13:40:01,632 and sent to > > > FQDN:PORT > > > > at > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:40:02,550; send took 917 millis > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:40:07,787 INFO [Clustering Tasks Thread-1] > > > > o.a.n.c.c. > > > > > >>> ClusterProtocolHeaertbeater > > > > > >>> >> Heartbeat create at 2017-05-25 13:40:07,657 and sent to > > > FQDN:PORT > > > > at > > > > > >>> >> 2017-05-25 13:40:07,787; send took 129 millis > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> I will work on setting up an external ZK next, but would > still > > > > like > > > > > some > > > > > >>> >> insight to what is being observed with the embedded ZK. > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> Thanks, > > > > > >>> >> Mark > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Mark Bean < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> >>> Yes, we are using the embedded ZK. We will try > instantiating > > > and > > > > > >>> external > > > > > >>> >>> ZK and see if that resolves the problem. > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> The load on the system is extremely small. Currently (as > > Nodes > > > > are > > > > > >>> >>> disconnecting/reconnecting) all input ports to the flow are > > > > turned > > > > > >>> off. The > > > > > >>> >>> only data in the flow is from a single GenerateFlow > > generating > > > 5B > > > > > >>> every 30 > > > > > >>> >>> secs. > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> Also, it is a 5-node cluster with embedded ZK on each node. > > > > First, > > > > > I > > > > > >>> will > > > > > >>> >>> try reducing ZK to only 3 nodes. Then, I will try a 3-node > > > > > external ZK. > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> Thanks, > > > > > >>> >>> Mark > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Joe Witt < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>>> Are you using the embedded Zookeeper? If yes we recommend > > > using > > > > > an > > > > > >>> >>>> external zookeeper. > > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> What type of load are the systems under when this occurs > > (cpu, > > > > > >>> >>>> network, memory, disk io)? Under high load the default > > > timeouts > > > > > for > > > > > >>> >>>> clustering are too aggressive. You can relax these for > > higher > > > > > load > > > > > >>> >>>> clusters and should see good behavior. Even if the system > > > > > overall is > > > > > >>> >>>> not under all that high of load if you're seeing garbage > > > > > collection > > > > > >>> >>>> pauses that are lengthy and/or frequent it can cause the > > same > > > > high > > > > > >>> >>>> load effect as far as the JVM is concerned. > > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> Thanks > > > > > >>> >>>> Joe > > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > > >>> >>>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Mark Bean < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >>>> wrote: > > > > > >>> >>>> > We have a cluster which is showing signs of instability. > > The > > > > > Primary > > > > > >>> >>>> Node > > > > > >>> >>>> > and Coordinator are reassigned to different nodes every > > > > several > > > > > >>> >>>> minutes. I > > > > > >>> >>>> > believe this is due to lack of heartbeat or other > > > > coordination. > > > > > The > > > > > >>> >>>> > following error occurs periodically in the nifi-app.log > > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > > > >>> >>>> > ERROR [CommitProcessor:1] o.apache.zookeeper.server. > > > > > NIOServerCnxn > > > > > >>> >>>> > Unexpected Exception: > > > > > >>> >>>> > java.nio.channels.CancelledKeyException: null > > > > > >>> >>>> > at sun.nio.ch.SelectionKeyImpl.en > > > > > >>> >>>> sureValid(SectionKeyImpl.java:73) > > > > > >>> >>>> > at sun.nio.ch.SelectionKeyImpl.in > > > > > >>> >>>> terestOps(SelctionKeyImpl.java:77) > > > > > >>> >>>> > at > > > > > >>> >>>> > org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnxn.sendBuffer( > > > NIOServ > > > > > >>> >>>> erCnxn.java:151) > > > > > >>> >>>> > at > > > > > >>> >>>> > org.apache.zookeeper.server.NIOServerCnXn.sendResopnse( > > > NIOSe > > > > > >>> >>>> rverCnxn.java:1081) > > > > > >>> >>>> > at > > > > > >>> >>>> > org.apache.zookeeper.server.FinalRequestProcessor. > > > processReq > > > > > >>> >>>> uest(FinalRequestProcessor.java:404) > > > > > >>> >>>> > at > > > > > >>> >>>> > org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum.CommitProcessor.run( > > > Commi > > > > > >>> >>>> tProcessor.java:74) > > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > > > >>> >>>> > Apache NiFi 1.2.0 > > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > > > >>> >>>> > Thoughts? > > > > > >>> >>>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
