There was a change in that area in 0.9.6 (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-763), although I'm not sure if
it will help your issue.


On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Kashyap Mhaisekar <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hmm. Thanks for the lead. On storm UI, the uptime for each executor except
> spout shows pretty much consistent values. Spout has crashed for sure. But
> then never comes up. Will check this up again.
>
> But the other question is - Is the Netty reconnects issue solved in 0.9.5?
> What is your storm version?
>
> Thanks
> Kashyap
> On Sep 13, 2015 08:04, "Martin Burian" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> They do restart after a while, yes. But if you don't see any error in the
>> log, it's weird. I encountered a case of workers not starting because I
>> configured the worker JVM to expose JMX interface for remote monitoring on
>> a given port. Other workers on the same machine however could not start as
>> they failed to bind to the already used port. No error messages whatsoever.
>> Might any such thing be your case?
>>
>> Othervise the cause should be logged somewhere. A worker is definitely
>> not running, or at least talking to the supervisor. You could try using
>> less workers to find out when/where the error occurs.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> ne 13. 9. 2015 v 13:43 odesílatel Kashyap Mhaisekar <[email protected]>
>> napsal:
>>
>>> All worker logs have the same log. Workers are up. I am using only one
>>> box with multiple workers to test.
>>> Workers should be restarted of they fail right? So ideally, this error
>>> should be gone in a while..
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> Kashyap
>>> On Sep 13, 2015 05:10, "Martin Burian" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When this appears in worker log, it means that the worker is trying to
>>>> connect to another worker, but the other is not running. What do you see in
>>>> worker-6707.log? Is the other worker runing?
>>>> Matrin
>>>>
>>>> ne 13. 9. 2015 v 6:06 odesílatel Kashyap Mhaisekar <[email protected]>
>>>> napsal:
>>>>
>>>>> Also,
>>>>> Is there a way to switch back to 0mq from Netty? If so, what needs to
>>>>> be done?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> kashyap
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Kashyap Mhaisekar <
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am having a Netty related issues in my storm cluster where the spout
>>>>>> stops consuming after a while. The corresponding worker logs show -
>>>>>> *2015-09-12T23:28:23.391-0400 b.s.m.n.Client [ERROR] connection
>>>>>> attempt 26 to
>>>>>> Netty-Client-trsttel2pascapp01.vm.itg.corp.us.shldcorp.com/10.2.70.18:6707
>>>>>> <http://Netty-Client-trsttel2pascapp01.vm.itg.corp.us.shldcorp.com/10.2.70.18:6707>
>>>>>> failed: java.lang.RuntimeException: Returned channel was actually not
>>>>>> established*
>>>>>> *2015-09-12T23:28:23.391-0400 b.s.m.n.Client [INFO] connection
>>>>>> attempt 27 to Netty-Client-serverstorm1.myorg.com/10.2.70.18:6707
>>>>>> <http://Netty-Client-serverstorm1.myorg.com/10.2.70.18:6707> scheduled to
>>>>>> run in 392 ms*
>>>>>> *2015-09-12T23:28:23.784-0400 b.s.m.n.Client [ERROR] connection
>>>>>> attempt 27 to Netty-Client-**serverstorm1.myorg.com
>>>>>> <http://serverstorm1.myorg.com>**/10.2.70.18:6707
>>>>>> <http://10.2.70.18:6707> failed: java.lang.RuntimeException: Returned
>>>>>> channel was actually not established*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The corresponding supervisor logs had
>>>>>> *2015-09-12T23:28:23.018-0400 b.s.d.supervisor [INFO]
>>>>>> 32e3f906-3869-4f0c-ac1c-4916615daf99 still hasn't started*
>>>>>> *2015-09-12T23:28:23.518-0400 b.s.d.supervisor [INFO]
>>>>>> 32e3f906-3869-4f0c-ac1c-4916615daf99 still hasn't started*
>>>>>> *2015-09-12T23:28:24.019-0400 b.s.d.supervisor [INFO]
>>>>>> 32e3f906-3869-4f0c-ac1c-4916615daf99 still hasn't started*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had storm version 0.9.3 when this issue occurred and had upgraded
>>>>>> to 0.9.4 and 0.9.5 to seek relief, but the issue still persists. Am not
>>>>>> sure what else to do. Am not even sure why this issue occurs and what
>>>>>> triggers it. Any help would be great and appreciated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Kashyap
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>

Reply via email to