Hi Koji,

In the subsequent tests the above error did not come but now we are getting
errors on the RPG :

RemoteGroupPort[name=1_pk_ip,targets=http://xxxxxx.prod.xx.local:9090/nifi/]
failed to communicate with remote NiFi instance due to
java.io.IOException: Failed to confirm transaction with
Peer[url=nifi://xxx-xxxxx.prod.xx.local:5001] due to
java.io.IOException: Connection reset by peer

The transport protocol is RAW while the URLs mentioned while setting
up the RPG is one of the node of the (4)node cluster.

nifi.remote.input.socket.port = 5001

nifi.remote.input.secure=false

nifi.remote.input.http.transaction.ttl=60 sec

nifi.remote.input.host=

Please let me  know if there is any configuration changes that we need to make.





On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:48 AM Faisal Durrani <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Koji ,
>
> Thank you for your reply. I updated the logback.xml and ran the test
> again. I can see an additional error in the app.log which is as below.
>
> o.a.nifi.remote.SocketRemoteSiteListener
> java.io.EOFException: null
>       at java.io.DataInputStream.readUnsignedShort(DataInputStream.java:340)
>       at java.io.DataInputStream.readUTF(DataInputStream.java:589)
>       at java.io.DataInputStream.readUTF(DataInputStream.java:564)
>       at 
> org.apache.nifi.remote.protocol.RequestType.readRequestType(RequestType.java:36)
>       at 
> org.apache.nifi.remote.protocol.socket.SocketFlowFileServerProtocol.getRequestType(SocketFlowFileServerProtocol.java:147)
>       at 
> org.apache.nifi.remote.SocketRemoteSiteListener$1$1.run(SocketRemoteSiteListener.java:253)
>       at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
>
>
> I notice this error is reported against not just one node but different
> nodes in the cluster. Would you be able infer the root cause of the issue
> from this information?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 3:34 PM Koji Kawamura <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> 1. The error message sounds like the client disconnects in the middle
>> of Site-to-Site communication. Enabling debug log would show more
>> information, by adding <logger name="org.apache.nifi.remote"
>> level="DEBUG"/> at conf/logback.xml.
>>
>> 2. I'd suggest checking if your 4 nodes receive data evenly (well
>> distributed). Connection status history, 'Queued Count' per node may
>> be useful to check. If not evenly distributed, I'd lower Remote Port
>> batch settings at sending side.
>> Then try to find a bottle neck in downstream flow. Increasing
>> concurrent tasks at such bottle neck processor can help increasing
>> throughput in some cases. Adding more node will also help.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Koji
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Faisal Durrani <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi, I've got two questions
>> >
>> > 1.We are using Remote Process Group with Raw transport protocol to
>> > distribute the data across four node cluster. I see the nifi app log
>> has a
>> > lot of instance of the below error
>> >
>> > o.a.nifi.remote.SocketRemoteSiteListener Unable to communicate with
>> remote
>> > instance Peer[url=nifi://xxx-xxxxxx.prod.xx.:59528]
>> >
>> (SocketFlowFileServerProtocol[CommsID=0bf887ed-acb3-4eea-94ac-5abf53ad0bf1])
>> > due to java.io.EOFException; closing connection
>> >
>> > These error do not show on the bulletin board and nor do I see any data
>> > loss. I was curious to know if there is some bad configuration that is
>> > causing this to happen.
>> >
>> > 2. The app log also has the below error
>> >
>> > o.a.n.r.c.socket.EndpointConnectionPool EndpointConnectionPool[Cluster
>> > URL=[http://xxx-xxxxxx.prod.xx.local:9090/nifi-api]]
>> > Peer[url=nifi://ins-btrananifi107z.prod.jp.local:5001] indicates that
>> port
>> > 417e3d23-5b1a-1616-9728-9d9d1a462646's destination is full; penalizing
>> peer
>> >
>> > The data flow consume a high volume data and there is back pressure on
>> > almost all the connections. So probably that is what causing it. I guess
>> > there isn't much we can do here and once the back pressure resolve ,the
>> > error goes away on its own.Please let me know of your view.
>> >
>> >
>>
>

Reply via email to