[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3806?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16553056#comment-16553056
]
Josh Elser commented on ACCUMULO-3806:
--------------------------------------
{quote}I'm not sure that I agree with this
{quote}
Yeah, doesn't strike me as the right way to solve this.
Totally right that this isn't an actionable warning/error – and we know that
there are situations in which this is completely expected to happen. If you
remove the thrown exception, the client is probably not going to get the
correct response (e.g. think that its table creation succeeded which is totally
wrong).
My take on an improvement would be to suppress the monitor warning IFF we know
that this exact table was already created.
> Failing to create a table/namespace because it already exists should not be a
> warning
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ACCUMULO-3806
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3806
> Project: Accumulo
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: fate
> Reporter: Josh Elser
> Priority: Major
> Labels: newbie
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments:
> 0001-ACCUMULO-3806-changed-checkTableDoesNotExist-in-accu.patch
>
>
> This is a really common occurrence when you're running randomwalk:
> {noformat}
> Failed to execute Repo, tid=63d0421f1b17b04a
> ThriftTableOperationException(tableId:null, tableName:nspc_001.ctt_000,
> op:CREATE, type:EXISTS, description:null)
> at
> org.apache.accumulo.master.tableOps.Utils.checkTableDoesNotExist(Utils.java:54)
> at
> org.apache.accumulo.master.tableOps.PopulateZookeeper.call(PopulateZookeeper.java:54)
> at
> org.apache.accumulo.master.tableOps.PopulateZookeeper.call(PopulateZookeeper.java:30)
> at
> org.apache.accumulo.master.tableOps.TraceRepo.call(TraceRepo.java:57)
> at
> org.apache.accumulo.fate.Fate$TransactionRunner.run(Fate.java:72)
> at
> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145)
> at
> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
> at
> org.apache.accumulo.fate.util.LoggingRunnable.run(LoggingRunnable.java:35)
> at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
> {noformat}
> Concurrent table creations run: only one succeeds and the others fail. This
> is expected and what FATE was designed to handle. We shouldn't be pushing
> these up to the monitor -- should probably be a info or debug message.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
