I've long be waffling about the usefulness of our "infinite retry"
logic. It's great for daemons. It sucks for humans.
Maybe there's a story in addressing this via ClientConfiguration -- let
the user tell us the policy they want to follow.
John Vines wrote:
Of course, it's when I hit send that I realize that we could mitigate by
making the client aware of the master state, and if the system is shut down
(which was the case for that ticket), then it can fail quickly with a
descriptive message.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:58 AM John Vines<vi...@apache.org> wrote:
While we want to be fault tolerant, there's a point where we want to
eventually fail. I know we have a couple never ending retry loops that need
to be addressed (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-1268),
but I'm unsure if queries suffer from this problem.
Unfortunately, fault tolerance is a bit at odds with instant notification
of system issues, since some of the fault tolerance is temporally oriented.
And that ticket lacks context of it never failing out vs. failing out
eventually (but too long for the user)
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 7:46 PM Christopher<ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
I saw this bug report:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300987
As far as I can tell, they are reporting normal, expected, and desired
behavior of Accumulo as a bug. But, is there something we can do upstream
to enable fast failures in the case of Accumulo not running to support
their use case?
Personally, I don't see how we can reliably detect within the client that
the cluster is down or up, vs. a normal temporary server outage/migration,
since there is there is no single point of authority for Accumulo to
determine its overall operating status if ZooKeeper is running and no
other
servers are. Am I wrong?
