That's it. That's the end of the regionserver log. In the master's web UI
the regionserver is in the table labeled "Dead Region Servers."

In the master's log there is:
2012-07-19 07:02:04,016 INFO
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.zookeeper.RegionServerTracker: RegionServer
ephemeral node deleted, processing expiration [slave2,60020,1342694622535]
2012-07-19 07:02:04,025 DEBUG
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.AssignmentManager: based on AM, current
region=-ROOT-,,0.70236052 is on server=slave2,60020,1342694622535 server
being checked: slave2,60020,1342694622535
2012-07-19 07:02:04,025 DEBUG
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.AssignmentManager: based on AM, current
region=.META.,,1.1028785192 is on server=slave2,60020,1342694622535 server
being checked: slave2,60020,1342694622535
2012-07-19 07:02:04,027 DEBUG org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.ServerManager:
Added=slave2,60020,1342694622535 to dead servers, submitted shutdown
handler to be executed, root=true, meta=true
2012-07-19 07:02:04,027 INFO
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.master.handler.ServerShutdownHandler: Splitting
logs for slave2,60020,1342694622535

The timestamps are different than above but it's from the same application
just at a different time than I sent before. The message would look the
same only with the timestamps being 2012-07-19 09:49ish

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote:

> Can you paste more of the region server log after 09:49:18,551 (till the
> region server died) ?
>
> Thanks
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The log snippet just before the regionservers die look like this:
> >
> > 2012-07-19 09:49:18,551 INFO project.coproc.IndexEndpoint: putting new
> > rowkey
> > 2012-07-19 09:49:18,551 INFO project.coproc.IndexEndpoint: new rowkey put
> > 2012-07-19 09:49:18,551 INFO project.coproc.IndexEndpoint: coproc time:
> > 1227 ms
> > 2012-07-19 09:49:18,551 INFO project.coproc.IndexEndpoint: closing
> scanner
> > 2012-07-19 09:49:18,551 INFO project.coproc.IndexEndpoint: scanner closed
> > <after this log statement in the endpoint code is the return statement>
> >
> > A coprocessorExec call may be from 3-20 seconds after the previous (it
> > depends how long the last call took). But I know the endpoints are
> > finishing their code fast because throughout the log each "coproc time:"
> > statement is under 5 seconds.
> >
> > I am using CDH4b2, which uses HBase 0.92.1.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Kevin:
> > > Can you pastebin the log snippet from region server just before it
> died ?
> > >
> > > How frequent were your coprocessorExec() calls ?
> > > What HBase version were you using ?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Kevin <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'm using endpoint coprocessors to do intense scans in parallel on
> some
> > > > tables. I log the time it takes for each coprocessor to finish its
> job
> > on
> > > > the region. Each coprocessor rarely takes longer than a few seconds,
> > > > maximum of 5 seconds (there are only 5 regions on the tables right
> > now).
> > > As
> > > > my cluster grows with data the call HTable.coprocessorExec takes
> longer
> > > and
> > > > longer but the coprocessors themselves finish quickly (under 5
> > seconds).
> > > > Eventually I see all my regionservers die because the coprocessorExec
> > > call
> > > > timed out and zookeeper kills the connection, which makes the
> > > regionserver
> > > > die.
> > > >
> > > > In terms of code structure, the coprocessorExec call is done inside a
> > > > for-loop. The for-loop iterates over a List of objects to help form
> > > filters
> > > > for the endpoint and then calls the coprocessorExec once per object
> > > > processed.
> > > >
> > > > What would be the bottleneck? Is calling the coprocessor like this
> in a
> > > > for-loop loading the regions down and not allowing them time to do
> GC?
> > Is
> > > > there a way to ping a table and judge if it'll be ready for the
> > endpoint
> > > > call?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -Kevin
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to