Yes which bolt is reporting all those failures?  My theory is that there is
some ES tuning that needs to be done.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]> wrote:

> Could I see a little more of that screen?  Specifically what the bolts
> look like.
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Ali Nazemian <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Please find the storm-UI screenshot as follows.
>>
>> http://imgur.com/FhIrGFd
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Ali Nazemian <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Casey,
>>>
>>> - topology.message.timeout: It was 30s at first. I have increased it to
>>> 300s, no changes!
>>> - It is a very basic geo-enrichment and simple rule for threat triage!
>>> - No, not at all.
>>> - I have changed that to find the best value. it is 5000 which is about
>>> to 5MB.
>>> - I have changed the number of executors for the Storm acker thread, and
>>> I have also changed the value of topology.max.spout.pending, still no
>>> changes!
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also,
>>>> * what's your setting for topology.message.timeout?
>>>> * You said you're seeing this in indexing and enrichment, what
>>>> enrichments do you have in place?
>>>> * Is ES being taxed heavily?
>>>> * What's your ES batch size for the sensor?
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So you're seeing failures in the storm topology but no errors in the
>>>>> logs.  Would you mind sending over a screenshot of the indexing topology
>>>>> from the storm UI?  You might not be able to paste the image on the 
>>>>> mailing
>>>>> list, so maybe an imgur link would be in order.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Casey
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Ali Nazemian <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Ryan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I cannot see any error inside the indexing error topic. Also, the
>>>>>> number of tuples is emitted and transferred to the error indexing bolt is
>>>>>> zero!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Ryan Merriman <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you see any errors in the error* index in Elasticsearch?  There
>>>>>>> are several catch blocks across the different topologies that transform
>>>>>>> errors into json objects and forward them on to the indexing topology.  
>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>> you're not seeing anything in the worker logs it's likely the errors 
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> captured there instead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ryan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Ali Nazemian <[email protected]
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No everything is fine at the log level. Also, when I checked
>>>>>>>> resource consumption at the workers, there had been plenty resources 
>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>> available!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Casey Stella <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Seeing anything in the storm logs for the workers?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 07:41 Ali Nazemian <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After I tried to tune the Metron performance I have noticed the
>>>>>>>>>> rate of failure for the indexing/enrichment topologies are very high 
>>>>>>>>>> (about
>>>>>>>>>> 95%). However, I can see the messages in Elasticsearch. I have tried 
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> increase the timeout value for the acknowledgement. It didn't fix the
>>>>>>>>>> problem. I can set the number of acker executors to 0 to temporarily 
>>>>>>>>>> fix
>>>>>>>>>> the problem which is not a good idea at all. Do you have any idea 
>>>>>>>>>> what have
>>>>>>>>>> caused such issue? The percentage of failure decreases by reducing 
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> number of parallelism, but even without any parallelism, it is still 
>>>>>>>>>> high!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> Ali
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> A.Nazemian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> A.Nazemian
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> A.Nazemian
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> A.Nazemian
>>
>
>

Reply via email to