Sever, I presume you're loading your data via online Puts via the MR job (as opposed to generating HFiles). What are you hoping to gain from a coprocessor implementation vs the 6 MR jobs? Have you pre-split your tables? Can the RegionServer(s) handle all the concurrent mappers?
-n On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Sever Fundatureanu < [email protected]> wrote: > I agree that increasing the timeout is not the best option, I will work > both on better balancing the load and maybe doing it in increments like you > suggested. However for now I want a quick fix to the problem. > > Just to see if I understand this right: a zookeeper node redirects my > client to a region server node and then my client talk directly to this > region server; now the timeout happens on the client while talking to the > RS right? It expects some kind of confirmation and it times out.. if this > is the case how can I increase this timeout? I only found in the > documentation "zookeeper.session.timeout" which is the timeout between > zookeeper and HBase. > > Thanks, > Sever > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Jean-Marc Spaggiari < > [email protected] > > wrote: > > > Hi Sever, > > > > It seems one of the nodes in your cluster is overwhelmed with the load > > you are giving him. > > > > So IMO, you have two options here: > > First, you can try to reduce the load. I mean, split the bulk in > > multiple smaller bulks and load them one by one to give the time to > > your cluster to dispatch it correctly. > > Second, you can inscreade the timeone from 60s to 120s. But you might > > face the same issue with 120s so I really recommand the fist option. > > > > JM > > > > 2012/7/2, Sever Fundatureanu <[email protected]>: > > > Can someone please help me with this? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Sever > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Sever Fundatureanu < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> My keys are built of 4 8-byte Ids. I am currently doing the load with > > MR > > >> but I get a timeout when doing the loadIncrementalFiles call: > > >> > > >> 12/06/24 21:29:01 ERROR mapreduce.LoadIncrementalHFiles: Encountered > > >> unrecoverable error from region server > > >> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.RetriesExhaustedException: Failed after > > >> attempts=10, exceptions: > > >> Sun Jun 24 21:29:01 CEST 2012, > > >> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.LoadIncrementalHFiles$3@4699ecf9, > > >> java.net.SocketTimeoutException: Call to das3002.cm.cluster/ > > >> 10.141.0.79:60020 > > >> failed on socket timeout exception: java.net.SocketTimeoutException: > > >> 60000 > > >> millis timeout while waiting for channel to be ready for read. ch : > > >> java.nio.channels.SocketChannel[co > > >> nnected local=/10.141.0.254:43240 remote=das3002.cm.cluster/ > > >> 10.141.0.79:60020] > > >> > > >> at > > >> > > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.HConnectionManager$HConnectionImplementation.getRegionServerWithRetries(HConnectionManager.java:1345) > > >> at > > >> > > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.LoadIncrementalHFiles.tryAtomicRegionLoad(LoadIncrementalHFiles.java:487) > > >> at > > >> > > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.LoadIncrementalHFiles$1.call(LoadIncrementalHFiles.java:275) > > >> at > > >> > > > org.apache.hadoop.hbase.mapreduce.LoadIncrementalHFiles$1.call(LoadIncrementalHFiles.java:273) > > >> at > > >> java.util.concurrent.FutureTask$Sync.innerRun(FutureTask.java:303) > > >> at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:138) > > >> at > > >> > > > java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.runTask(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:886) > > >> at > > >> > > > java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:908) > > >> at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662) > > >> 12/06/24 21:30:52 ERROR mapreduce.LoadIncrementalHFiles: Encountered > > >> unrecoverable error from region server > > >> > > >> Is there a way in which I can increase the timeout period? > > >> > > >> Thank you, > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Andrew Purtell > > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Sever Fundatureanu > > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > I have to bulkload 6 tables which contain the same information but > > >>> > with > > >>> a > > >>> > different order to cover all possible access patterns. Would it be > a > > >>> good > > >>> > idea to do only one load and use co-processors to populate the > other > > >>> > tables, instead of doing the traditional MR bulkload which would > > >>> require 6 > > >>> > separate jobs? > > >>> > > >>> Without knowing more than you've said, it seems better to use MR to > > >>> build all input. > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> > > >>> - Andy > > >>> > > >>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet > > >>> Hein (via Tom White) > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Sever Fundatureanu > > >> > > >> Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam > > >> E-mail: [email protected] > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sever Fundatureanu > > > > > > Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam > > > E-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > -- > Sever Fundatureanu > > Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam > E-mail: [email protected] >
