[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9591?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13776759#comment-13776759
]
Jean-Daniel Cryans commented on HBASE-9591:
-------------------------------------------
bq. but I'm wondering what kind of impact that would have on resource usage. At
first glance, it looks like it should be fine.
Yeah it should not be too bad... unless we have a RS that recovers a ton of
failed RS at the same time (but even then it might be dwarfed but the buffer we
use to replicate). Seems cleaner too although more invasive given how we key
using the peer id.
> [replication] getting "Current list of sinks is out of date" all the time
> when a source is recovered
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-9591
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-9591
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 0.96.0
> Reporter: Jean-Daniel Cryans
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.96.1
>
>
> I tried killing a region server when the slave cluster was down, from that
> point on my log was filled with:
> {noformat}
> 2013-09-20 00:31:03,942 INFO [regionserver60020.replicationSource,1]
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.replication.regionserver.ReplicationSinkManager:
> Current list of sinks is out of date, updating
> 2013-09-20 00:31:04,226 INFO
> [ReplicationExecutor-0.replicationSource,1-jdec2hbase0403-4,60020,1379636329634]
> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.replication.regionserver.ReplicationSinkManager:
> Current list of sinks is out of date, updating
> {noformat}
> The first log line is from the normal source, the second is the recovered
> one. When we try to replicate, we call
> replicationSinkMgr.getReplicationSink() and if the list of machines was
> refreshed since the last time then we call chooseSinks() which in turn
> refreshes the list of sinks and resets our lastUpdateToPeers. The next source
> will notice the change, and will call chooseSinks() too. The first source is
> coming for another round, sees the list was refreshed, calls chooseSinks()
> again. It happens forever until the recovered queue is gone.
> We could have all the sources going to the same cluster share a thread-safe
> ReplicationSinkManager. We could also manage the same cluster separately for
> each source. Or even easier, if the list we get in chooseSinks() is the same
> we had before, consider it a noop.
> What do you think [~gabriel.reid]?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
