Can you pick some of the files that are missing and search through your logs to put together a timeline? See if you can find that file for a specific tablet. Then grab all the logs for when a file was created as result of a compaction, and a when a file was included in compaction for that table. Follow compactions for that tablet until you started getting errors. Then see what logs you have for WAL replay during that time for that tablet and the metadata and can try to correlate.
It's a shame you don't have the GC logs. If you saw it was GC'd then showed up in the metadata table again that would help explain what happened. Like Christopher mentioned, this could be related to a recovery failure. Mike On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:26 PM Adam J. Shook <adamjsh...@gmail.com> wrote: > WALs are turned on. Durability is set to flush for all tables except for > root and metadata which are sync. The current rfile names on HDFS and in > the metadata table are greater than the files that are missing. > Searched through all of our current and historical logs in Splunk (which > are only INFO level or higher). Issues from the logs: > > * Problem reports saying the files are not found > * IllegalStateException saying the rfile is closed when it tried to load > the Bloom filter (likely the flappy DataNode) > * IOException when reading the file saying Stream is closed (likely the > flappy DataNode) > > Nothing in the GC logs -- all the above errors are in the tablet server > logs. The logs may have rolled over, though, and our debug logs don't make > it into Splunk. > > --Adam > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Oh, it occurs to me that this may be related to the WAL bugs that Keith >> fixed for 1.9.1... which could affect the metadata table recovery after a >> failure. >> >> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Adam, >>> >>> Do you have GC logs? Can you see if those missing RFiles were removed >>> by the GC process? That could indicate you somehow got old metadata info >>> replayed. Also, the rfiles increment so compare the current rfile names in >>> the srv.dir directory vs what is in the metadata table. Are the existing >>> files after files in the metadata. Finally, pick a few of the missing >>> files and grep all your master and tserver logs to see if you can learn >>> anything. This sounds ungood. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> This is strange. I've only ever seen this when HDFS has reported >>>> problems, such as missing blocks, or another obvious failure. What is your >>>> durability settings (were WALs turned on)? >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:45 PM Adam J. Shook <adamjsh...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> On one of our clusters, there are a good number of missing RFiles from >>>>> HDFS, however HDFS is not/has not reported any missing blocks. We were >>>>> experiencing issues with HDFS; some flapping DataNode processes that >>>>> needed >>>>> more heap. >>>>> >>>>> I don't anticipate I can do much besides create a bunch of empty >>>>> RFiles (open to suggestions). My question is, Is it possible that >>>>> Accumulo >>>>> could have written the metadata for these RFiles but failed to write it to >>>>> HDFS? In which case it would have been re-tried later and the data was >>>>> persisted to a different RFile? Or is it an 'RFile is in Accumulo >>>>> metadata >>>>> if and only if it is in HDFS' situation? >>>>> >>>>> Accumulo 1.8.1 on HDFS 2.6.0. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> --Adam >>>>> >>>> >
