[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3806?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16554055#comment-16554055
]
Christopher Tubbs commented on ACCUMULO-3806:
---------------------------------------------
I think this makes sense to be a warning. I do not think it should be
considered normal to request creation of already existing named resources. If
we have to give it is own logger, so that users can suppress it in their
monitor log config, I think that would be better.
> 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)
