Hey Pierre, Yes, we suspected as much, but we are only seeing this with the Wait processor. Possibly because that is the only "blocking" we have in this flow.
Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated! Martijn On 30 May 2018 at 10:30, Pierre Villard <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll let Koji give more information about the Wait/Notify, he is clearly > the expert here. > > I'm just jumping in regarding your "and when viewing the queue, the dialog > states that the queue is empty.". You're seeing this behavior because, even > though the UI shows some flow files in the queue, the flow files are > currently locked in the session of the running processor and you won't see > flow files currently processed in a session when listing a queue. If you > stop the processor, the session will be closed and you'll be able to list > the queue and see the flow files. > > I recall discussions in the past to improve the UX for this. Not sure we > have a JIRA for it though... > > Pierre > > 2018-05-30 8:26 GMT+02:00 Martijn Dekkers <[email protected]>: > >> Hi Koji, >> >> Thank you for responding. I had adjusted the run schedule to closely >> mimic our environment. We are expecting about 1 file per second or so. >> We are also seeing some random "orphans" sitting in a wait queue every >> now and again that don't trigger a debug message, and when viewing the >> queue, the dialog states that the queue is empty. >> >> We found the random "no signal found" issue to be significantly decreased >> when we increase the "concurrent tasks" to something large - currently set >> to 400 for all wait and notify processors. >> >> I do need to mention that our requirements had changed since you made the >> template, in that we are looking for a set of 8 files - 4 x "ext1" and 4 x >> "ext2" both with the same pattern: <groupid><type (4 of these)>.ext1 or ext2 >> >> We found that the best way to make this work was to add another >> wait/notify pair, each processor coming after the ones already there, with >> a simple counter against the groupID. >> >> I will export a template for you, many thanks for your help - I just need >> to spend some time sanitising the varies fields etc. >> >> Many thanks once again for your kind assistance. >> >> Martijn >> >> On 30 May 2018 at 08:14, Koji Kawamura <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Martjin, >>> >>> In my template, I was using 'Run Schedule' as '5 secs' for the Wait >>> processors to avoid overusing CPU resource. However, if you expect >>> more throughput, it should be lowered. >>> Changed Run Schedule to 0 sec, and I passed 100 group of files (400 >>> files because 4 files are 1 set in my example), they reached to the >>> expected goal of the flow without issue. >>> >>> If you can share your flow and example input file volume (hundreds of >>> files were fine in my flow), I may be able to provide more useful >>> comment. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Koji >>> >>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Martijn Dekkers <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > Hi Koji, >>> > >>> > I am seeing many issues to get this to run reliably. When running this >>> with >>> > a few flowfiles at a time, and stepping through by switching >>> processors on >>> > and off it works mostly fine, but running this at volume I receive many >>> > errors about "no release signal found" >>> > >>> > I have tried to fix this in a few different ways, but the issue keeps >>> coming >>> > back. This is also not consistent at all - different wait processors >>> will >>> > block different flowfiles at different times, without changing any >>> > configuration. Stop/Start the flow, and different queues will fill up. >>> Do >>> > you have any ideas what could be causing this behavior? I checked the >>> > DistributedMapCache Server/Client components, and they all appear to be >>> > working OK. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > >>> > Martijn >>> > >>> > On 28 May 2018 at 05:11, Koji Kawamura <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi Martin, >>> >> >>> >> Alternative approach is using Wait/Notify processors. >>> >> I have developed similar flow using those before, and it will work >>> >> with your case I believe. >>> >> A NiFi flow template is available here. >>> >> https://gist.github.com/ijokarumawak/06b3b071eeb4d10d8a27507981422edd >>> >> >>> >> Hope this helps, >>> >> Koji >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:48 PM, Andrew Grande <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Martijn, >>> >> > >>> >> > Here's an idea you could explore. Have the ListFile processor work >>> as >>> >> > usual >>> >> > and create a custom component (start with a scripting one to >>> prototype) >>> >> > grouping the filenames as needed. I don't know of the number of >>> files in >>> >> > a >>> >> > set is different every time, so trying to be more robust. >>> >> > >>> >> > Once you group and count the set, you can transfer the names to the >>> >> > success >>> >> > relationship. Ignore otherwise and wait until the set is full. >>> >> > >>> >> > Andrew >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Sun, May 27, 2018, 7:29 AM Martijn Dekkers < >>> [email protected]> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Hello all, >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I am trying to work out an issue with little success. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I need to ingest files generated by some application. I can only >>> ingest >>> >> >> these files when a specific set exists. For example: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> file_123_456_ab.ex1 >>> >> >> file_123_456_cd.ex1 >>> >> >> file_123_456_ef.ex1 >>> >> >> file_123_456_gh.ex1 >>> >> >> file_123_456.ex2 >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Only when a set like that exists should I pick them up into the >>> Flow. >>> >> >> The >>> >> >> parts I am looking for to "group" would "ab.ex1", "cd.ex1", >>> "ef.ex1", >>> >> >> "gh.ex1", ".ex2". >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I tried to do this with some expression, but couldn't work it out. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> What would be the best way to achieve this? >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Many thanks! >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> >
