We have not found any smoking gun here. Most likely these are region splits
on a quickly growing/hot region that all clients get caught waiting for.


On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Wayne <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thank you for the lead! We will definitely look closer at the OS logs.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Tatsuya Kawano <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Wayne,
>>
>> > We are seeing some TCP Resets on all nodes at the same time, and
>> sometimes
>> > quite a lot of them.
>>
>>
>> Have you checked this article from Andrei and Cosmin? They had a busy
>> firewall to cause network blackout.
>>
>> http://hstack.org/hbase-performance-testing/
>>
>> Maybe it's not your case but just for sure.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Tatsuya Kawano (Mr.)
>> Tokyo, Japan
>>
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2011, at 4:52 AM, Wayne <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > We are seeing some TCP Resets on all nodes at the same time, and
>> sometimes
>> > quite a lot of them. We have yet to correlate the pauses to the TCP
>> resets
>> > but I am starting to wonder if this is partly a network problem. Does
>> > Gigabit Ethernet break down on high volume nodes? Do high volume nodes
>> use
>> > 10G or Infiniband?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jon asks that you describe your loading in the issue.  Would you mind
>> >> doing so.  Ted, stick up in the issue the workload and configs. you
>> >> are running if you don't mind.  I'd like to try it over here.
>> >> Thanks lads,
>> >> St.Ack
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Wayne <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>> Added: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3438.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Wayne <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> We are using 0.89.20100924, r1001068
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We are seeing see it during heavy write load (which is all the time),
>> >> but
>> >>>> yesterday we had read load as well as write load and saw both reads
>> and
>> >>>> writes stop for 10+ seconds. The region size is the biggest clue we
>> have
>> >>>> found from our tests as setting up a new cluster with a 1GB max
>> region
>> >> size
>> >>>> and starting to load heavily we will see this a lot for long long
>> time
>> >>>> frames. Maybe the bigger file gets hung up more easily with a split?
>> >> Your
>> >>>> description below also fits in that early on the load is not balanced
>> so
>> >> it
>> >>>> is easier to stop everything on one node as the balance is not great
>> >> early
>> >>>> on. I will file a JIRA. I will also try to dig deeper into the logs
>> >> during
>> >>>> the pauses to find a node that might be stuck in a split.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Wayne <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>>> We have very frequent cluster wide pauses that stop all reads and
>> >>>>> writes
>> >>>>>> for seconds.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> All reads and all writes?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I've seen the pause too for writes.  Its something I've always meant
>> >>>>> to look into.  Friso postulates one cause.  Another that we've
>> talked
>> >>>>> of is a region taking a while to come back on line after a split or
>> a
>> >>>>> rebalance for whatever reason.  Client loading might be 'random'
>> >>>>> spraying over lots of random regions but they all get stuck waiting
>> on
>> >>>>> one particular region to come back online.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I suppose reads could be blocked for same reason if all are trying
>> to
>> >>>>> read from the offlined region.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> What version of hbase are you using?  Splits should be faster in
>> 0.90
>> >>>>> now that the split daughters come up on the same region.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sorry I don't have a better answer for you.  Need to dig in.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> File a JIRA.  If you want to help out some, stick some data up in
>> it.
>> >>>>> Some suggestions would be to enable logging of when we lookup region
>> >>>>> locations in client and then note when requests go to zero.  Can you
>> >>>>> figure what region the clients are waiting on (if they are waiting
>> on
>> >>>>> any).  If you can pull out a particular one, try and elicit its
>> >>>>> history at time of blockage.  Is it being moved or mid-split?  I
>> >>>>> suppose it makes sense that bigger regions would make the situation
>> >>>>> 'worse'.  I can take a look at it too.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> St.Ack
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> We are constantly loading data to this cluster of 10 nodes.
>> >>>>>> These pauses can happen as frequently as every minute but sometimes
>> >> are
>> >>>>> not
>> >>>>>> seen for 15+ minutes. Basically watching the Region server list
>> with
>> >>>>> request
>> >>>>>> counts is the only evidence of what is going on. All reads and
>> writes
>> >>>>>> totally stop and if there is ever any activity it is on the node
>> >> hosting
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>>> .META. table with a request count of region count + 1. This problem
>> >>>>> seems to
>> >>>>>> be worse with a larger region size. We tried a 1GB region size and
>> >> saw
>> >>>>> this
>> >>>>>> more than we saw actual activity (and stopped using a larger region
>> >> size
>> >>>>>> because of it). We went back to the default region size and it was
>> >>>>> better,
>> >>>>>> but we had too many regions so now we are up to 512M for a region
>> >> size
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>>> we are seeing it more again.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Does anyone know what this is? We have dug into all of the logs to
>> >> find
>> >>>>> some
>> >>>>>> sort of pause but are not able to find anything. Is this an wal
>> hlog
>> >>>>> roll?
>> >>>>>> Is this a region split or compaction? Of course our biggest fear is
>> a
>> >> GC
>> >>>>>> pause on the master but we do not have java logging turned on with
>> >> the
>> >>>>>> master to tell. What could possibly stop the entire cluster from
>> >> working
>> >>>>> for
>> >>>>>> seconds at a time very frequently?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Thanks in advance for any ideas of what could be causing this.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to