Presumably the client is in java using RDFConnectionFactory.connectFuseki?
Do you have the data from 120611?
Could the request have got truncated?
The fact later PUTs stall suggest (does not prove) that the earlier
operation broken somehow but I'd expect a stacktrace in the log.
Overlapping should be fine - as that are the same database, one will
happen before the other even though they are separate graphs.
Andy
On 30/06/2020 22:29, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
Hello,
Running jena/fuseki 3.14.0, compiled and running under openjdk version
“1.8.0_252”.
Just some hours ago fuseki running on an AWS ec2 for almost a year, logged
around 199M occurrences of (times are UTC):
[2020-06-30 14:12:50] Fuseki INFO [120610] 200 OK (8 ms)
[2020-06-30 14:12:51] Fuseki INFO [120611] PUT
http://buda1.bdrc.io:13180/fuseki/corerw/data?graph=http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/PersonUIShapes
[2020-06-30 14:12:52] Fuseki INFO [120612] PUT
http://buda1.bdrc.io:13180/fuseki/corerw/data?graph=http://purl.bdrc.io/graph/ontologySchema
[2020-06-30 14:12:53] Fuseki INFO [120611] Body: Content-Length=73984,
Content-Type=application/rdf+thrift, Charset=null => RDF-THRIFT : Count=839
Triples=839 Quads=0
[2020-06-30 14:12:53] Fuseki INFO [120611] 200 OK (2.106 s)
[2020-06-30 14:12:57] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
[2020-06-30 14:12:57] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
[2020-06-30 14:12:57] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
[2020-06-30 14:12:57] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
[2020-06-30 14:12:57] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
. . .
[2020-06-30 16:21:33] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
[2020-06-30 16:21:33] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
[2020-06-30 16:21:33] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
[2020-06-30 16:21:33] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
[2020-06-30 16:21:33] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
[2020-06-30 16:21:33] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
[2020-06-30 16:21:33] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
[2020-06-30 16:21:33] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
[2020-06-30 16:21:33] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
[2020-06-30 16:21:33] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
[2020-06-30 16:21:33] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
[2020-06-30 16:21:33] ThriftConvert WARN visit: Unrecognized: <RDF_StreamRow >
30-Jun-2020 16:21:34.866 INFO [main]
org.apache.catalina.startup.VersionLoggerListener.log Server version:
Apache Tomcat/8.0.53
30-Jun-2020 16:21:34.868 INFO [main]
org.apache.catalina.startup.VersionLoggerListener.log Server built:
Jun 29 2018 14:42:45 UTC
30-Jun-2020 16:21:34.868 INFO [main]
org.apache.catalina.startup.VersionLoggerListener.log Server number:
8.0.53.0
30-Jun-2020 16:21:34.868 INFO [main]
org.apache.catalina.startup.VersionLoggerListener.log OS Name:
Linux
30-Jun-2020 16:21:34.868 INFO [main]
org.apache.catalina.startup.VersionLoggerListener.log OS Version:
4.9.0-8-amd64
30-Jun-2020 16:21:34.868 INFO [main]
org.apache.catalina.startup.VersionLoggerListener.log Architecture:
amd64
30-Jun-2020 16:21:34.869 INFO [main]
org.apache.catalina.startup.VersionLoggerListener.log Java Home:
/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre
30-Jun-2020 16:21:34.869 INFO [main]
org.apache.catalina.startup.VersionLoggerListener.log JVM Version:
1.8.0_252-8u252-b09-1~deb9u1-b09
30-Jun-2020 16:21:34.869 INFO [main]
org.apache.catalina.startup.VersionLoggerListener.log JVM Vendor:
Oracle Corporation
30-Jun-2020 16:21:34.869 INFO [main]
org.apache.catalina.startup.VersionLoggerListener.log CATALINA_BASE:
/usr/local/fuseki/tomcat
Until I saw the issue and restarted fuseki.
An interesting thing I see in the trace is the overlapping PUTs just as fuseki
wigged out. There were no changes in code or the graphs that were the being PUT
as part of a restart of an app server.
Fuseki didn't go completely unresponsive except that later PUTs were
indefinitely delayed - which was how I noticed the issue.
We saw this once before in 29 April and didn’t delve into it at the time.
Has anyone seen this sort of thing before?
Thanks,
Chris
