+ dev@storm

Vinyasa/Srinath,

Anything you can share to make this reproducible would be very helpful.

I would love to see a network partition simulation framework for Storm along 
the lines of what Kyle Kingsbury has done with Jepsen [1]. It basically sets up 
a virtual cluster then simulates network partitions by manipulating iptables.

Jepsen [2] is written in clojure and Kyle is a strong proponent.

I think it is worth a look.

-Taylor

[1] 
http://aphyr.com/posts/281-call-me-maybe-carly-rae-jepsen-and-the-perils-of-network-partitions
[2] https://github.com/aphyr/jepsen

> On Aug 5, 2014, at 8:39 PM, Srinath C <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I have seen this behaviour too using 0.9.2-incubating.
> The failover works better when there is a redundant node available. Maybe 1 
> slot per node is the best approach.
> Eager to know if there are any steps to further diagnose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Vinay Pothnis <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> [Storm Version: 0.9.2-incubating]
>> 
>> Hello, 
>> 
>> I am trying to test failover scenarios with my storm cluster. The following 
>> are the details of the cluster:
>> 
>> * 4 nodes
>> * Each node with 2 slots
>> * Topology with around 600 spouts and bolts
>> * Num. Workers for the topology = 4
>> 
>> I am running a test that generating a constant load. The cluster is able to 
>> handle this load fairly well and the CPU utilization at this point is below 
>> 50% on all the nodes. 1 slot is occupied on each of the nodes. 
>> 
>> I then bring down one of the nodes (kill the supervisor and the worker 
>> processes on a node). After this, another worker is created on one of the 
>> remaining nodes. But the CPU utilization jumps up to 100%. At this point, 
>> nimbus cannot communicate with the supervisor on the node and keeps killing 
>> and restarting workers. 
>> 
>> The CPU utilization remains pegged at 100% as long as the load is on. If I 
>> stop the tests and restart the test after a while, the same set up with just 
>> 3 nodes works perfectly fine with less CPU utilization. 
>> 
>> Any pointers to how to figure out the reason for the high CPU utilization 
>> during the failover? 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Vinay
> 

Reply via email to