I don't think it has any changes that would prevent rollback, but it's not
a scenario that has been tested to my knowledge.

On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, 16:15 Dave Marion <dmario...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's going to take some time to review the changes[1], but I don't see
> changes in the default JVM sizes. I was wondering if maybe the issue is
> that it's running faster. You are loading the same amount of data, but is
> it going faster by chance? If so, you could be creating more garbage per
> unit time putting more pressure on the GC. Just a thought.
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/accumulo/compare/rel/1.9.3..rel/1.10.2
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 4:02 PM Logan Jones <lo...@codescratch.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, our memory usage is drastically different since the upgrade.
> >
> > We are seeing spikes in heap utilization on tablet servers that weren't
> > happening before the upgrade despite our ingest load being roughly the
> > same. This increase in heap utilization seems to be causing long GC
> times.
> > Those GC times are long enough that the tablet servers lose their locks
> and
> > then die.
> >
> > Looking into the JVM options, we don't see anything obvious that changed
> > around the garbage collector, and looking at the Accumulo release notes
> > didn't leave us any indication that something like this should have
> > changed, but nevertheless we are seeing crashes of tservers. I'm mostly
> > trying to identify whether or not rollback is even an option.
> >
> > - Logan
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 3:49 PM Dave Marion <dmario...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >   Are you running into an error or some other issue that is making you
> > > think that you have to rollback? I don't know that rolling back has
> been
> > > tested.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 3:40 PM Logan Jones <lo...@codescratch.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello:
> > > >
> > > > We recently upgraded from Accumulo 1.9.3 to 1.10.2. Is it safe to
> roll
> > > back
> > > > to Accumulo 1.9.3?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > >
> > > > - Logan
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to