Thanks, I'll check Jira. As for versions, Hadoop 2.2.0, Zk 3.4.5, CentOS 64bit (kernel 2.6.32-431.el6.x86_64). Has much testing been done using Hadoop 2.2.0? I tried Hadoop 2.0.0 (CDH 4.5.0) but ran into HDFS-5225/5031 which basically makes it a non-starter.
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > I meant to reply to your original email, but I didn't yet, sorry. > > First off, if Accumulo is reporting that it found multiple locations for > the same extent, this is a (very bad) bug in Accumulo. It might be worth > looking at tickets that at marked as "affects 1.5.0" and "fixed in 1.5.1" > on Jira. It's likely that we've already encountered and fixed the issue, > but, if you can't find a fix that was already made, we don't want to > overlook the potential need for one. > > For both "live" and "bulk" ingest, *neither* should lose any data. This is > one thing that Accumulo should never be doing. If you have multiple > locations for an extent, it seems plausible to me that you would run into > data loss. However, you should focus on trying to determine why you keep > running into multiple locations for a tablet. > > After you take a look at Jira, I would likely go ahead and file a jira to > track this since it's easier to follow than an email thread. Be sure to > note if there is anything notable about your installation (did you download > it directly from the accumulo.apache.org site)? You should also include > what OS and version and what Hadoop and ZooKeeper versions you are running. > > > On 1/26/2014 4:10 PM, Anthony F wrote: > >> I have observed a loss of data when tservers fail during bulk ingest. >> The keys that are missing are right around the table's splits indicating >> that data was lost when a tserver died during a split. I am using >> Accumulo 1.5.0. At around the same time, I observe the master logging a >> message about "Found two locations for the same extent". Can anyone >> shed light on this behavior? Are tserver failures during bulk ingest >> supposed to be fault tolerant? >> >
