Max, On you 3 node cluster, how many tables are you ingesting into? How many tablets are in each table? Are the tablets equally spread amongst the 3 tablet servers?
Mike On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:13 AM Massimilian Mattetti <massi...@il.ibm.com> wrote: > With the configuration I presented before the concurrent major compactions > are never more than 3 per tablet server while the minor are under the 4 per > node. Can one of the other configurations be the cause of this behavior? > > Regards, > Max > > > > From: Dave Marion <dlmar...@comcast.net> > To: user@accumulo.apache.org, Massimilian Mattetti/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL > Date: 23/03/2017 14:55 > Subject: Re: tserver.compaction.*.concurrent.max behavior in > Accumulo 1.8.1 > ------------------------------ > > > > Can you explain more what you mean by "My problem is that both the minor > and major compactions do not overcome their default max values?" I have > done some testing with 1.8.1 and specifically modifying > tserver.compaction.major.concurrent.max to a higher number and I have seen > it take effect. > > On March 23, 2017 at 7:54 AM Massimilian Mattetti <massi...@il.ibm.com> > wrote: > > Hi All, > > I am running some heavy ingestion process on a 3 nodes cluster of Accumulo > 1.8.1, using the following configuration: > > table.compaction.minor.logs.threshold=10 > table.durability=flush > table.file.max=30 > > tserver.wal.blocksize=2G > tserver.walog.max.size=4G > tserver.mutation.queue.max=2M > tserver.memory.maps.max=4G > tserver.compaction.minor.concurrent.max=50 > tserver.compaction.major.concurrent.max=8 > > My problem is that both the minor and major compactions do not overcome > their default max values. I checked the config from the shell and it looks > fine to me: > > default | tserver.compaction.major.concurrent.max ................ | 3 > system | @override > ........................................... | 8 > > default | tserver.compaction.minor.concurrent.max ............... | 4 > system | @override > ........................................... | 50 > > Is something changed from 1.8.0? I haven't seen such behavior with the > previous version. > Thanks. > > Regards, > Max > > > > >
