[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-4723?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15331600#comment-15331600
]
John Omernik commented on DRILL-4723:
-------------------------------------
In addition, One thing I noticed was that with my 5 nodes, only 2 or 3 of them
(depending on which time I run the query) is actually writing during this query
(before things get bad due to the Heap issues). I may try reducing
parallelization and see what happens.
What is level of effort for working to move the writers away from on heap
memory? I guess my concern here is doing a comparison to other tools with
Parquet, large tables, and 1024m block sizes are not "crazy" and other tools
can handle this, is there incentive within the drill project to handle Parquet
writing in a way that use the Direct Memory?
Thanks
[~adeneche] Given [~jnadeau] and his post on the subject, is a Heap Dump still
something to look at?
> GC Memory Allocation Issues
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: DRILL-4723
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-4723
> Project: Apache Drill
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Server
> Affects Versions: 1.6.0
> Environment: 5 Drill bits, MapR 1.6 release. 84GB of Direct Memory,
> 24GB of Heap
> Reporter: John Omernik
> Labels: memory, stability
> Fix For: Future
>
> Attachments: node3.log
>
>
> This issue is reposted from the Drill User List. More logs available on
> request in comments (please specify which logs you may want)
> High level: Drill Cluster gets into a bad state when this occurs.
> This is what I have thus far... I can provide more complete logs on a one on
> one basis.
> The cluster was completely mine, with fresh logs. I ran a CTAS query on a
> large table that over 100 fields. This query works well in other cases,
> however I was working with the Block size, both in MapR FS and Drill Parquet.
> I had successfully tested 512m on each, this case was different. Here are the
> facts in this setup:
> - No Compression in MapRFS - Using Standard Parquet Snappy Compression
> - MapR Block Size 1024m
> - Parquet Block size 1024m
> - Query ends up disappearing in the profiles
> - The UI page listing bits only show 4 bits however 5 are running (node 03
> process is running, but no longer in the bit)
> - Error (copied below) from rest API
> - No output in STD out or STD error on node3. Only two nodes actually had
> "Parquet Writing" logs. The other three on Stdout, did not have any
> issues/errors/
> - I have standard log files, gclogs, the profile.json (before it
> disappeared), and the physical plan. Only some components that looked
> possibly at issue included here
> - The Node 3 GC log shows a bunch of "Full GC Allocation Failures" that take
> 4 seconds or more (When I've seen this in other cases, this time can balloon
> to 8 secs or more)
> - The node 3 output log show some issues with really long RPC issues. Perhaps
> the GCs prevent RPC communication and create a snowball loop effect?
> Other logs if people are interested can be provided upon request. I just
> didn't want to flood the whole list with all the logs.
> Thanks!
> John
> Rest Error:
> ./load_day.py 2016-05-09
> Drill Rest Endpoint: https://drillprod.marathonprod.zeta:20000
> Day: 2016-05-09
> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/urllib3/connectionpool.py:769:
> InsecureRequestWarning: Unverified HTTPS request is being made. Adding
> certificate verification is strongly advised. See:
> https://urllib3.readthedocs.org/en/latest/security.html
> InsecureRequestWarning)
> Authentication successful
> Error encountered: 500
> {
> "errorMessage" : "SYSTEM ERROR: ForemanException: One more more nodes lost
> connectivity during query. Identified nodes were
> [atl1ctuzeta03:20001].\n\n\n[Error Id: d7dd0120-f7c0-44ef-ac54-29c746b26354
> on atl1ctuzeta01:20001"
> }
> Possible issue in Node3 Log:
> 2016-06-14 17:25:27,860 [289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:frag:1:90] INFO
> o.a.d.e.w.f.FragmentStatusReporter -
> 289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:1:90: State to report: RUNNING
> 2016-06-14 17:25:27,871 [289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:frag:1:70] INFO
> o.a.d.e.w.fragment.FragmentExecutor -
> 289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:1:70: State change requested
> AWAITING_ALLOCATION --> RUNNING
> 2016-06-14 17:25:27,871 [289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:frag:1:70] INFO
> o.a.d.e.w.f.FragmentStatusReporter -
> 289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:1:70: State to report: RUNNING
> 2016-06-14 17:43:41,869 [BitServer-4] WARN
> o.a.d.exec.rpc.control.ControlClient - Message of mode RESPONSE of rpc type 1
> took longer than 500ms. Actual duration was 4192ms.
> 2016-06-14 17:45:36,720 [CONTROL-rpc-event-queue] INFO
> o.a.d.e.w.fragment.FragmentExecutor -
> 289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:1:0: State change requested RUNNING -->
> CANCELLATION_REQUESTED
> 2016-06-14 17:45:45,740 [CONTROL-rpc-event-queue] INFO
> o.a.d.e.w.f.FragmentStatusReporter -
> 289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:1:0: State to report:
> CANCELLATION_REQUESTED
> 2016-06-14 17:46:15,318 [BitServer-3] WARN
> o.a.d.exec.rpc.control.ControlServer - Message of mode REQUEST of rpc type 6
> took longer than 500ms. Actual duration was 55328ms.
> 2016-06-14 17:46:36,057 [CONTROL-rpc-event-queue] INFO
> o.a.d.e.w.fragment.FragmentExecutor -
> 289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:1:5: State change requested RUNNING -->
> CANCELLATION_REQUESTED
> 2016-06-14 17:46:44,620 [CONTROL-rpc-event-queue] INFO
> o.a.d.e.w.f.FragmentStatusReporter -
> 289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:1:5: State to report:
> CANCELLATION_REQUESTED
> 2016-06-14 17:47:01,393 [BitServer-3] WARN
> o.a.d.exec.rpc.control.ControlServer - Message of mode REQUEST of rpc type 6
> took longer than 500ms. Actual duration was 29781ms.
> 2016-06-14 17:47:09,463 [CONTROL-rpc-event-queue] INFO
> o.a.d.e.w.fragment.FragmentExecutor -
> 289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:1:10: State change requested RUNNING -->
> CANCELLATION_REQUESTED
> 2016-06-14 17:47:26,967 [CONTROL-rpc-event-queue] INFO
> o.a.d.e.w.f.FragmentStatusReporter -
> 289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:1:10: State to report:
> CANCELLATION_REQUESTED
> 2016-06-14 17:47:55,593 [BitServer-3] WARN
> o.a.d.exec.rpc.control.ControlServer - Message of mode REQUEST of rpc type 6
> took longer than 500ms. Actual duration was 46130ms.
> 2016-06-14 17:48:04,497 [CONTROL-rpc-event-queue] INFO
> o.a.d.e.w.fragment.FragmentExecutor -
> 289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:1:15: State change requested RUNNING -->
> CANCELLATION_REQUESTED
> 2016-06-14 17:48:12,742 [BitServer-4] WARN
> o.a.d.exec.rpc.control.ControlClient - Message of mode RESPONSE of rpc type 1
> took longer than 500ms. Actual duration was 4236ms.
> 2016-06-14 17:48:42,328 [CONTROL-rpc-event-queue] INFO
> o.a.d.e.w.f.FragmentStatusReporter -
> 289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:1:15: State to report:
> CANCELLATION_REQUESTED
> 2016-06-14 17:49:36,351 [BitServer-4] WARN
> o.a.d.exec.rpc.control.ControlClient - Message of mode RESPONSE of rpc type 1
> took longer than 500ms. Actual duration was 4260ms.
> 2016-06-14 17:49:36,351 [BitServer-3] WARN
> o.a.d.exec.rpc.control.ControlServer - Message of mode REQUEST of rpc type 6
> took longer than 500ms. Actual duration was 91854ms.
> 2016-06-14 17:50:35,273 [CONTROL-rpc-event-queue] INFO
> o.a.d.e.w.fragment.FragmentExecutor -
> 289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:1:20: State change requested RUNNING -->
> CANCELLATION_REQUESTED
> 2016-06-14 17:50:39,322 [289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:frag:1:15] INFO
> o.a.d.e.w.fragment.FragmentExecutor -
> 289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:1:15: State change requested
> CANCELLATION_REQUESTED --> FAILED
> 2016-06-14 17:50:51,546 [CONTROL-rpc-event-queue] INFO
> o.a.d.e.w.f.FragmentStatusReporter -
> 289fc208-7266-6a81-73a1-709efff6c412:1:20: State to report:
> CANCELLATION_REQUESTED
> 2016-06-14 17:51:36,905 [BitServer-4] WARN
> o.a.d.exec.rpc.control.ControlClient - Message of mode RESPONSE of rpc type 1
> took longer than 500ms. Actual duration was 4426ms.
> 2016-06-14 17:52:30,805 [BitServer-3] WARN
> o.a.d.exec.rpc.control.ControlServer - Message of mode REQUEST of rpc type 6
> took longer than 500ms. Actual duration was 98767ms.
> 2016-06-14 17:52:47,042 [BitServer-4] WARN
> o.a.d.exec.rpc.control.ControlClient - Message of mode RESPONSE of rpc type 1
> took longer than 500ms. Actual duration was 12041ms.
> Possible issues in Node3 gclog:
> 1819.137: [Full GC (Allocation Failure) 23G->23G(24G), 4.0657064 secs]
> 1823.205: [GC concurrent-mark-abort]
> 1823.221: [GC pause (G1 Evacuation Pause) (young)-- 23G->23G(24G), 0.0382934
> secs]
> 1823.271: [GC pause (G1 Evacuation Pause) (young) (initial-mark)
> 23G->23G(24G), 0.0250215 secs]
> 1823.296: [GC concurrent-root-region-scan-start]
> 1823.296: [GC concurrent-root-region-scan-end, 0.0000105 secs]
> 1823.296: [GC concurrent-mark-start]
> 1823.308: [Full GC (Allocation Failure) 23G->23G(24G), 4.3719713 secs]
> 1827.694: [GC pause (G1 Evacuation Pause) (young)-- 23G->23G(24G), 0.0312666
> secs]
> 1827.727: [GC concurrent-mark-abort]
> 1827.735: [GC pause (G1 Evacuation Pause) (young) 23G->23G(24G), 0.0212359
> secs]
> 1827.766: [Full GC (Allocation Failure) 23G->23G(24G), 3.9308980 secs]
> 1831.710: [GC pause (G1 Evacuation Pause) (young)-- 23G->23G(24G), 0.0298229
> secs]
> 1831.750: [GC pause (G1 Evacuation Pause) (young) (initial-mark)
> 23G->23G(24G), 0.0268410 secs]
> 1831.777: [GC concurrent-root-region-scan-start]
> 1831.777: [GC concurrent-root-region-scan-end, 0.0000212 secs]
> 1831.777: [GC concurrent-mark-start]
> 1831.789: [Full GC (Allocation Failure) 23G->23G(24G), 3.9250410 secs]
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
