[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3295?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
stack updated HBASE-3295:
-------------------------
Attachment: 3295.txt
This one-line change should do it.
It makes deleteTable async over on master.
In HBaseAdmin, the current code sends the deleteTable to the master then spins
waiting on all entries in .META. to disappear. The deleteTable was
synchronous. With this change the deleteTable is now async.... so we should be
spinning client-side rather than server-side. Should get rid of the socket
timeout.
> 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
>
> Attachments: 3295.txt
>
>
> 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.
