[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4090?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15069995#comment-15069995
]
Josh Elser commented on ACCUMULO-4090:
--------------------------------------
bq. Looking at the TabletServerBatchWriter objects in the heap dump I see that
the closed field is always false. I wonder if the root cause is that this field
is not marked as volatile (and the flushing field may be an issue too).
Wouldn't those only need to be volatile if they were accessed outside of
synchronized blocks? As far as I see, {{closed}} is only accessed inside
synchronized methods.
> BatchWriter close not cleaning up all resources
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ACCUMULO-4090
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4090
> Project: Accumulo
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: client
> Affects Versions: 1.7.0
> Reporter: Eric Newton
> Assignee: Eric Newton
>
> I'm debugging an issue with a long-running ingestor, similar to the
> TraceServer.
> After realizing that BatchWriter close needs to be called when a
> MutationsRejectedException occurs (see ACCUMULO-4088), a close was added, and
> the client became more stable.
> However, after a day, or so, the client became sluggish. When inspecting a
> heap dump, many TabletServerBatchWriter objects were still referenced. This
> server should only have two BatchWriter instances at any one time, and this
> server had >100.
> Still debugging.
> The error that initiates the issue is a SessionID not found, presumably
> because the session timed out. This is the cause of the
> MutationsRejectedException seen by the client.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
