Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
Locked
Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
 
|
Hi everyone,
unfortunately, I am running into another problem trying to establish exactly once guarantees (Kafka -> Flink 1.0.0-rc3 -> HDFS). When using RollingSink<Tuple3<Integer,Integer,String>> sink = new RollingSink<Tuple3<Integer,Integer,String>>("<a href="hdfs://our.machine.com:8020/hdfs/dir/outbound" class="">hdfs://our.machine.com:8020/hdfs/dir/outbound"); sink.setBucketer(new NonRollingBucketer()); output.addSink(sink); and then killing the job manager, the new job manager is unable to restore the old state throwing --- java.lang.Exception: Could not restore checkpointed state to operators and functions at org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.tasks.StreamTask.restoreState(StreamTask.java:454) at org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.tasks.StreamTask.invoke(StreamTask.java:209) at org.apache.flink.runtime.taskmanager.Task.run(Task.java:559) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744) Caused by: java.lang.Exception: Failed to restore state to function: In-Progress file <a href="hdfs://our.machine.com:8020/hdfs/dir/outbound/part-5-0" class="">hdfs://our.machine.com:8020/hdfs/dir/outbound/part-5-0 was neither moved to pending nor is still in progress. at org.apache.flink.streaming.api.operators.AbstractUdfStreamOperator.restoreState(AbstractUdfStreamOperator.java:168) at org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.tasks.StreamTask.restoreState(StreamTask.java:446) ... 3 more Caused by: java.lang.RuntimeException: In-Progress file <a href="hdfs://our.machine.com:8020/hdfs/dir/outbound/part-5-0" class="">hdfs://our.machine.com:8020/hdfs/dir/outbound/part-5-0 was neither moved to pending nor is still in progress. at org.apache.flink.streaming.connectors.fs.RollingSink.restoreState(RollingSink.java:686) at org.apache.flink.streaming.connectors.fs.RollingSink.restoreState(RollingSink.java:122) at org.apache.flink.streaming.api.operators.AbstractUdfStreamOperator.restoreState(AbstractUdfStreamOperator.java:165) ... 4 more --- I found a resolved issue [1] concerning Hadoop 2.7.1. We are in fact using 2.4.0 – might this be the same issue? Another thing I could think of is that the job is not configured correctly and there is some sort of timing issue. The checkpoint interval is 10 seconds, everything else was left at default value. Then again, as the NonRollingBucketer is used, there should not be any timing issues, right? Cheers, Max — Maximilian Bode * Junior Consultant * [hidden email] TNG Technology Consulting GmbH, Betastr. 13a, 85774 Unterföhring Geschäftsführer: Henrik Klagges, Christoph Stock, Dr. Robert Dahlke Sitz: Unterföhring * Amtsgericht München * HRB 135082 |
signature.asc (465 bytes)
Re: Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
|
|
Just for the sake of completeness: this also happens when killing a task manager and is therefore probably unrelated to job manager HA.
|
Re: Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
|
|
Re: Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
|
|
Hi Aljoscha, thank you for the fast answer. The files in HDFS change as follows: -before task manager is killed: [user@host user]$ hdfs dfs -ls -R /hdfs/dir/outbound -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 2435461 2016-03-03 14:51 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-0-0.in-progress -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 2404604 2016-03-03 14:51 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-1-0.in-progress -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 2453796 2016-03-03 14:51 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-10-0.in-progress -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 2447794 2016-03-03 14:51 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-11-0.in-progress -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 2453479 2016-03-03 14:51 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-2-0.in-progress -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 2512413 2016-03-03 14:51 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-3-0.in-progress -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 2431290 2016-03-03 14:51 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-4-0.in-progress -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 2457820 2016-03-03 14:51 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-5-0.in-progress -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 2430218 2016-03-03 14:51 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-6-0.in-progress -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 2482970 2016-03-03 14:51 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-7-0.in-progress -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 2452622 2016-03-03 14:51 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-8-0.in-progress -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 2467733 2016-03-03 14:51 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-9-0.in-progress -shortly after task manager is killed: [user@host user]$ hdfs dfs -ls -R /hdfs/dir/outbound -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 12360198 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-0-0.pending -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9350654 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-1-0.in-progress -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9389872 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-10-0.in-progress -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 12236015 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-11-0.pending -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 12256483 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-2-0.pending -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 12261730 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-3-0.pending -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9418913 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-4-0.in-progress -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 12176987 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-5-0.pending -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 12165782 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-6-0.pending -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9474037 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-7-0.in-progress -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 12136347 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-8-0.pending -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 12305943 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-9-0.pending -still a bit later: [user@host user]$ hdfs dfs -ls -R /hdfs/dir/outbound -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-0-0.valid-length -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 8026667 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-0-1.pending -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-1-0.valid-length -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 8097752 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-1-1.pending -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-10-0.valid-length -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 7109259 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-10-1.pending -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 0 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-2-0.valid-length -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-3-0.valid-length -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 7974655 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-3-1.pending -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-4-0.valid-length -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 5753163 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-4-1.pending -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 0 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-5-0.valid-length -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-6-0.valid-length -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 7904468 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-6-1.pending -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-7-0.valid-length -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 7477004 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-7-1.pending -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 0 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-8-0.valid-length -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-9-0.valid-length -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 7979307 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/_part-9-1.pending -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 12360198 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/part-0-0 -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9350654 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/part-1-0 -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9389872 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/part-10-0 -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 12256483 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/part-2-0 -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 12261730 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/part-3-0 -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9418913 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/part-4-0 -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 12176987 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/part-5-0 -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 12165782 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/part-6-0 -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 9474037 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/part-7-0 -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 12136347 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/part-8-0 -rw-r--r-- 2 user hadoop 12305943 2016-03-03 14:52 /hdfs/dir/outbound/part-9-0 Can you see from this what is going wrong? Cheers, Max — Maximilian Bode * Junior Consultant * [hidden email] TNG Technology Consulting GmbH, Betastr. 13a, 85774 Unterföhring Geschäftsführer: Henrik Klagges, Christoph Stock, Dr. Robert Dahlke Sitz: Unterföhring * Amtsgericht München * HRB 135082
|
Re: Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
|
|
Hi Aljoscha,
did you by any chance get around to looking at the problem again? It seems to us that at the time when restoreState() is called, the files are already in final status and there are additional .valid-length files (hence there are neither pending nor in-progress files). Furthermore, one of the part files (11 in the example below) is missing completely. We are able to reproduce this behavior by killing a task manager. Can you make sense of that? Cheers, Max
— Maximilian Bode * Junior Consultant * [hidden email] TNG Technology Consulting GmbH, Betastr. 13a, 85774 Unterföhring Geschäftsführer: Henrik Klagges, Christoph Stock, Dr. Robert Dahlke Sitz: Unterföhring * Amtsgericht München * HRB 135082
|
Re: Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
|
|
Re: Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
|
|
Hi Aljoscha,
thank you very much, I will try if this fixes the problem and get back to you. I am using 1.0.0 as of today :) Cheers, Max
— Maximilian Bode * Junior Consultant * [hidden email] TNG Technology Consulting GmbH, Betastr. 13a, 85774 Unterföhring Geschäftsführer: Henrik Klagges, Christoph Stock, Dr. Robert Dahlke Sitz: Unterföhring * Amtsgericht München * HRB 135082
|
Re: Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
|
|
In reply to this post by Aljoscha Krettek
Hi Aljoscha,
thanks again for getting back to me. I built from your branch and the exception is not occurring anymore. The RollingSink state can be restored. Still, the exactly-once guarantee seems not to be fulfilled, there are always some extra records after killing either a task manager or the job manager. Do you have an idea where this behavior might be coming from? (I guess concrete numbers will not help greatly as there are so many parameters influencing them. Still, in our test scenario, we produce 2 million records in a Kafka queue but in the final output files there are on the order of 2.1 million records, so a 5% error. The job is running in a per-job YARN session with n=3, s=4 with a checkpointing interval of 10s.) On another (maybe unrelated) note: when I pulled your branch, the Travis build did not go through for -Dhadoop.version=2.4.1. I have not looked into this further as of now, is this one of the tests known to fail sometimes? Cheers, Max — Maximilian Bode * Junior Consultant * [hidden email] TNG Technology Consulting GmbH, Betastr. 13a, 85774 Unterföhring Geschäftsführer: Henrik Klagges, Christoph Stock, Dr. Robert Dahlke Sitz: Unterföhring * Amtsgericht München * HRB 135082
|
Re: Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
|
|
Re: Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
|
|
Hi Aljoscha,
oh I see. I was under the impression this file was used internally and the output being completed at the end. Ok, so I extracted the relevant lines using for i in part-*; do head -c $(cat "_$i.valid-length" | strings) "$i" > "$i.final"; done which seems to do the trick. Unfortunately, now some records are missing again. In particular, there are the files part-0-0, part-1-0, ..., part-10-0, part-11-0, each with corresponding .valid-length files part-0-1, part-1-1, ..., part-10-0 in the bucket, where job parallelism=12. So it looks to us as if one of the files was not even created in the second attempt. This behavior seems to be what somewhat reproducible, cf. my earlier email where the part-11 file disappeared as well. Thanks again for your help. Cheers, Max
— Maximilian Bode * Junior Consultant * [hidden email] TNG Technology Consulting GmbH, Betastr. 13a, 85774 Unterföhring Geschäftsführer: Henrik Klagges, Christoph Stock, Dr. Robert Dahlke Sitz: Unterföhring * Amtsgericht München * HRB 135082
|
Re: Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
|
|
Re: Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
|
|
Hi,
thanks for the fast answer. Answers inline. > Am 08.03.2016 um 13:31 schrieb Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>: > > Hi, > a missing part file for one of the parallel sinks is not necessarily a problem. This can happen if that parallel instance of the sink never received data after the job successfully restarted. > > Missing data, however, is a problem. Maybe I need some more information about your setup: > > - When are you inspecting the part files? Some time after the cluster is shut down > - Do you shutdown the Flink Job before checking? If so, how do you shut it down. Via 'cancel' in the Jobmanager Web Interface. Some records seem to be written only after cancelling the job, right? > - When do you know whether all the data from Kafka was consumed by Flink and has passed through the pipeline into HDFS? I have an accumulator in a map right before writing into HDFS. Also, the RollingSink has a DataTimeBucketer which makes it transparent when no new data is arriving anymore as the last bucket is from some minutes ago. > > Cheers, > Aljoscha >> On 08 Mar 2016, at 13:19, Maximilian Bode <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Hi Aljoscha, >> >> oh I see. I was under the impression this file was used internally and the output being completed at the end. Ok, so I extracted the relevant lines using >> for i in part-*; do head -c $(cat "_$i.valid-length" | strings) "$i" > "$i.final"; done >> which seems to do the trick. >> >> Unfortunately, now some records are missing again. In particular, there are the files >> part-0-0, part-1-0, ..., part-10-0, part-11-0, each with corresponding .valid-length files >> part-0-1, part-1-1, ..., part-10-0 >> in the bucket, where job parallelism=12. So it looks to us as if one of the files was not even created in the second attempt. This behavior seems to be what somewhat reproducible, cf. my earlier email where the part-11 file disappeared as well. >> >> Thanks again for your help. >> >> Cheers, >> Max >> — >> Maximilian Bode * Junior Consultant * [hidden email] >> TNG Technology Consulting GmbH, Betastr. 13a, 85774 Unterföhring >> Geschäftsführer: Henrik Klagges, Christoph Stock, Dr. Robert Dahlke >> Sitz: Unterföhring * Amtsgericht München * HRB 135082 >> >>> Am 08.03.2016 um 11:05 schrieb Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>: >>> >>> Hi, >>> are you taking the “.valid-length” files into account. The problem with doing “exactly-once” with HDFS is that before Hadoop 2.7 it was not possible to truncate files. So the trick we’re using is to write the length up to which a file is valid if we would normally need to truncate it. (If the job fails in the middle of writing the output files have to be truncated to a valid position.) For example, say you have an output file part-8-0. Now, if there exists a file part-8-0.valid-length this file tells you up to which position the file part-8-0 is valid. So you should only read up to this point. >>> >>> The name of the “.valid-length” suffix can also be configured, by the way, as can all the other stuff. >>> >>> If this is not the problem then I definitely have to investigate further. I’ll also look into the Hadoop 2.4.1 build problem. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Aljoscha >>>> On 08 Mar 2016, at 10:26, Maximilian Bode <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Aljoscha, >>>> thanks again for getting back to me. I built from your branch and the exception is not occurring anymore. The RollingSink state can be restored. >>>> >>>> Still, the exactly-once guarantee seems not to be fulfilled, there are always some extra records after killing either a task manager or the job manager. Do you have an idea where this behavior might be coming from? (I guess concrete numbers will not help greatly as there are so many parameters influencing them. Still, in our test scenario, we produce 2 million records in a Kafka queue but in the final output files there are on the order of 2.1 million records, so a 5% error. The job is running in a per-job YARN session with n=3, s=4 with a checkpointing interval of 10s.) >>>> >>>> On another (maybe unrelated) note: when I pulled your branch, the Travis build did not go through for -Dhadoop.version=2.4.1. I have not looked into this further as of now, is this one of the tests known to fail sometimes? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Max >>>> <travis.log> >>>> — >>>> Maximilian Bode * Junior Consultant * [hidden email] >>>> TNG Technology Consulting GmbH, Betastr. 13a, 85774 Unterföhring >>>> Geschäftsführer: Henrik Klagges, Christoph Stock, Dr. Robert Dahlke >>>> Sitz: Unterföhring * Amtsgericht München * HRB 135082 >>>> >>>>> Am 07.03.2016 um 17:20 schrieb Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Maximilian, >>>>> sorry for the delay, we where very busy with the release last week. I had a hunch about the problem but I think I found a fix now. The problem is in snapshot restore. When restoring, the sink tries to clean up any files that where previously in progress. If Flink restores to the same snapshot twice in a row then it will try to clean up the leftover files twice but they are not there anymore, this causes the exception. >>>>> >>>>> I have a fix in my branch: https://github.com/aljoscha/flink/tree/rolling-sink-fix >>>>> >>>>> Could you maybe try if this solves your problem? Which version of Flink are you using? You would have to build from source to try it out. Alternatively I could build it and put it onto a maven snapshot repository for you to try it out. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Aljoscha >>>>>> On 03 Mar 2016, at 14:50, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> did you check whether there are any files at your specified HDFS output location? If yes, which files are there? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Aljoscha >>>>>>> On 03 Mar 2016, at 14:29, Maximilian Bode <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just for the sake of completeness: this also happens when killing a task manager and is therefore probably unrelated to job manager HA. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 03.03.2016 um 14:17 schrieb Maximilian Bode <[hidden email]>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> unfortunately, I am running into another problem trying to establish exactly once guarantees (Kafka -> Flink 1.0.0-rc3 -> HDFS). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When using >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> RollingSink<Tuple3<Integer,Integer,String>> sink = new RollingSink<Tuple3<Integer,Integer,String>>("hdfs://our.machine.com:8020/hdfs/dir/outbound"); >>>>>>>> sink.setBucketer(new NonRollingBucketer()); >>>>>>>> output.addSink(sink); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and then killing the job manager, the new job manager is unable to restore the old state throwing >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> java.lang.Exception: Could not restore checkpointed state to operators and functions >>>>>>>> at org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.tasks.StreamTask.restoreState(StreamTask.java:454) >>>>>>>> at org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.tasks.StreamTask.invoke(StreamTask.java:209) >>>>>>>> at org.apache.flink.runtime.taskmanager.Task.run(Task.java:559) >>>>>>>> at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744) >>>>>>>> Caused by: java.lang.Exception: Failed to restore state to function: In-Progress file hdfs://our.machine.com:8020/hdfs/dir/outbound/part-5-0 was neither moved to pending nor is still in progress. >>>>>>>> at org.apache.flink.streaming.api.operators.AbstractUdfStreamOperator.restoreState(AbstractUdfStreamOperator.java:168) >>>>>>>> at org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.tasks.StreamTask.restoreState(StreamTask.java:446) >>>>>>>> ... 3 more >>>>>>>> Caused by: java.lang.RuntimeException: In-Progress file hdfs://our.machine.com:8020/hdfs/dir/outbound/part-5-0 was neither moved to pending nor is still in progress. >>>>>>>> at org.apache.flink.streaming.connectors.fs.RollingSink.restoreState(RollingSink.java:686) >>>>>>>> at org.apache.flink.streaming.connectors.fs.RollingSink.restoreState(RollingSink.java:122) >>>>>>>> at org.apache.flink.streaming.api.operators.AbstractUdfStreamOperator.restoreState(AbstractUdfStreamOperator.java:165) >>>>>>>> ... 4 more >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> I found a resolved issue [1] concerning Hadoop 2.7.1. We are in fact using 2.4.0 – might this be the same issue? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Another thing I could think of is that the job is not configured correctly and there is some sort of timing issue. The checkpoint interval is 10 seconds, everything else was left at default value. Then again, as the NonRollingBucketer is used, there should not be any timing issues, right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Max >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-2979 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> — >>>>>>>> Maximilian Bode * Junior Consultant * [hidden email] >>>>>>>> TNG Technology Consulting GmbH, Betastr. 13a, 85774 Unterföhring >>>>>>>> Geschäftsführer: Henrik Klagges, Christoph Stock, Dr. Robert Dahlke >>>>>>>> Sitz: Unterföhring * Amtsgericht München * HRB 135082 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > |
Re: Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
|
|
Re: Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
|
|
Hi Aljoscha,
yeah I should have been clearer. I did mean those accumulators but am not trusting them in the sense of total number (as you said, they are reset on failure). On the other hand, if they do not change for a while it is pretty obvious that the job has ingested everything in the queue. But you are right, this is kind of heuristic. In combination with the fact that the DateTimeBucketer does not create new folders I believe this should be sufficient to decide when the job has basically finished, though. So the setup is the following: The Flink job consists of a FlinkKafkaConsumer08, a map containing just an IntCounter accumulator and finally a rolling sink writing to HDFS. I start it in a per-job yarn session with n=3, s=4. Then I pour 2 million records in the Kafka queue the application is reading from. If no job/task managers are killed, the behavior is exactly as expected: the output files in HDFS grow with time and I can exactly monitor via the accumulator when every record has been ingested from Kafka. After that time, I give the job a few seconds and then cancel it via the web interface. Then still some time later (to give the job the chance to output the few records still hanging around) a wc -l on the output files yields exactly the expected 2 million. On the other hand, if I kill a task manager while the job is in progress, one of the 12 output files seems to be missing as described before. A wc -l on only the relevant bytes as I mentioned in an earlier mail then leads to a number smaller than 2 million. We are using an FsStateBackend in HDFS with a checkpoint interval of 10s. Cheers, Max — Maximilian Bode * Junior Consultant * [hidden email] TNG Technology Consulting GmbH, Betastr. 13a, 85774 Unterföhring Geschäftsführer: Henrik Klagges, Christoph Stock, Dr. Robert Dahlke Sitz: Unterföhring * Amtsgericht München * HRB 135082
|
Re: Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
|
|
Re: Jobmanager HA with Rolling Sink in HDFS
|
|
Hi Aljoscha,
I think we are getting closer. I can verify that using your code the same thing happens again – one of the files is missing, even though there is a .valid-length file for it. I have attached a dump from the hdfs folder, which does contain a _part-11-0.valid-length file but NO part-11-0 file. What is more, the byte length in _part-11-0.valid-length is 3749. This corresponds to 768 lines (see part-10). When adding up everything* I get exactly 99232 lines for 100k sent records, so I think we have the culprit :) Cheers, Max * I first copyToLocal all relevant files, then for i in part-* ; do head -c$(cat "_$i.valid-length" | strings) "$i" > "final/$i.final" ; done cp *.pending final/ wc -l final/*
— Maximilian Bode * Junior Consultant * [hidden email] TNG Technology Consulting GmbH, Betastr. 13a, 85774 Unterföhring Geschäftsführer: Henrik Klagges, Christoph Stock, Dr. Robert Dahlke Sitz: Unterföhring * Amtsgericht München * HRB 135082
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |