[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3295?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12965815#action_12965815
]
Jonathan Gray commented on HBASE-3295:
--------------------------------------
This is basically the same as HBASE-3229 (except there it's only troubling, the
operation does seem to succeed). My opinion is that all operations that hit
the master should be async (or fast). create/enable/disable/drop/etc should be
async w/ another method to check the status. we shouldn't have long running
operations holding open rpc requests.
> Dropping a 1k+ regions table likely ends in a client socket timeout and it's
> very confusing
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-3295
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3295
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Jean-Daniel Cryans
> Fix For: 0.90.0
>
>
> I tried truncating a 1.6k regions table from the shell and, after the usual
> disabling timeout, I then got a socket timeout on the second invocation while
> it was dropping. It looked like this:
> {noformat}
> ERROR: java.net.SocketTimeoutException: Call to sv2borg180/10.20.20.180:61000
> failed on socket timeout exception:
> java.net.SocketTimeoutException: 60000 millis timeout while waiting for
> channel to be ready for read. ch :
> java.nio.channels.SocketChannel[connected local=/10.20.20.180:59153
> remote=sv2borg180/10.20.20.180:61000]
> {noformat}
> At first I thought that was coming from the master because HDFS was somehow
> slow, but then understood that it was my socket that timed out meaning that
> the master was still dropping the table. Calling truncate again, I got:
> {noformat}
> ERROR: Unknown table TestTable!
> {noformat}
> Which means that the table would be deleted... I learned later that it wasn't
> totally deleted after I shut down the cluster. So it leaves me in a situation
> where I have to manually delete the files on the FS and the remaining .META.
> entries.
> Since I expect a few people will hit this issue rather soon, for 0.90.0, I
> propose we just set the socket timeout really high in the shell. For 0.90.1,
> or 0.92, we should do for drop what we do for disabling.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
