[jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-3806) Failing to create a table/namespace because it already exists should not be a warning
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3806?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16554733#comment-16554733
]
Christopher Tubbs commented on ACCUMULO-3806:
-
[~kturner], oh, I misunderstood... I thought the client code returned silently.
I agree that the warning should not exist if the client code throws an
exception. I was thinking it was like "mkdirs" if a directory already existed.
We should have one (exception) or the other (warning), but not both.
> 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)
[jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-3806) Failing to create a table/namespace because it already exists should not be a warning
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3806?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16554538#comment-16554538
]
Josh Elser commented on ACCUMULO-3806:
--
[~coffeethulhu], when you looked at this, were you running with a build that
had ACCUMULO-3925?
> 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)
[jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-3806) Failing to create a table/namespace because it already exists should not be a warning
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3806?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16554278#comment-16554278
]
Keith Turner commented on ACCUMULO-3806:
I have seen code where this is expected behavior. Like launching lots of
processes that all attempt to create a table or an app that always attempts to
create a table on startup. If ACCUMULO-3925 has not already handled this, I do
not think it should create a warning. The client code calling create table
gets an exception and it knows exactly what happened based on the exception.
> 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)
[jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-3806) Failing to create a table/namespace because it already exists should not be a warning
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3806?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=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)
[jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-3806) Failing to create a table/namespace because it already exists should not be a warning
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3806?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16553090#comment-16553090
]
Keith Turner commented on ACCUMULO-3806:
Does ACCUMULO-3925 address this issue with the introduction of
{{AcceptableThriftTableOperationException.java}}?
> 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)
[jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-3806) Failing to create a table/namespace because it already exists should not be a warning
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3806?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=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)
[jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-3806) Failing to create a table/namespace because it already exists should not be a warning
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3806?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16552251#comment-16552251
]
Ed Coleman commented on ACCUMULO-3806:
--
I'm not sure that I agree with this - I see that this has existed as an issue
for a while, but I not sure modifying
{color:#00}/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/master/tableOps/Utils.java{color}
is necessarily the best way to handle an issue seen during random walk
testing.
What about a production system? If I have an existing table and try to create a
"new" table, I think I rather have it fail with the exception that the table
exists so that I am forced to handle it. With the exception, I can catch it
and either proceed with the existing table, or fail so that I do not corrupt
existing data with whatever I was going to next. If it just logs a message, it
seems that I could be proceeding when I would not want to.
I need to look further into where this is occurring in random-walk test, maybe
we should improve the table naming so that it is not "common", or we could
defeat the message in the test, or it could be handled by modifying the logging
configuration.
Thanks for looking at this.
> 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)
[jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-3806) Failing to create a table/namespace because it already exists should not be a warning
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3806?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16552240#comment-16552240
]
Matthew Dinep commented on ACCUMULO-3806:
-
Updated checkTableDoesNotExist method to log message instead of throwing table
exception. Patch file attached.
> 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)
