I don't think it's intentional. This might be the source of the problem.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 3:39 PM Vincent Russell <vincent.russ...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Also in TserverUtils:270, when the TNonblockingServerSocket is created it > looks like it ends up using the default frame size. I am not sure if this > is intentional or not. > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 3:26 PM Vincent Russell <vincent.russ...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Christopher, > > > > I am not sure if this issue is related to 3042 or not. > > > > On the client side it does look like TConfiguration ends up being called > > with the default constructor. I am not sure if this is intentional or not. > > > > On the server side I see this stack, so it also looks like: > > > > at org.apache.thrift.TConfiguration.<init>(TConfiguration.java:36) > > at org.apache.thrift.TConfiguration$Builder.build(TConfiguration.java:99) > > at org.apache.thrift.TConfiguration.<clinit>(TConfiguration.java:65) > > at > > org.apache.thrift.transport.TNonblockingSocket.<init>(TNonblockingSocket.java:74) > > at > > org.apache.thrift.transport.TNonblockingSocket.<init>(TNonblockingSocket.java:68) > > at > > org.apache.thrift.transport.TNonblockingServerSocket.accept(TNonblockingServerSocket.java:135) > > at > > org.apache.thrift.transport.TNonblockingServerSocket.accept(TNonblockingServerSocket.java:36) > > at > > org.apache.thrift.server.TNonblockingServer$SelectAcceptThread.handleAccept(TNonblockingServer.java:218) > > at > > org.apache.thrift.server.TNonblockingServer$SelectAcceptThread.select(TNonblockingServer.java:186) > > at > > org.apache.thrift.server.TNonblockingServer$SelectAcceptThread.run(TNonblockingServer.java:142) > > > > > > I see this in the server log so it does look like it should be using 1G: > > 2022-09-01 16:59:41 INFO [org.apache.accumulo.tserver.TabletServer] > > ServerUtil:124 - general.server.message.size.max = 1G > > > > Thanks, > > Vincent > > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:26 PM Vincent Russell < > > vincent.russ...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> I had to make a stack trace with hacking together a remote debug instance: > >> > >> at > >> org.apache.thrift.server.AbstractNonblockingServer$FrameBuffer.read(AbstractNonblockingServer.java:334) > >> at > >> org.apache.accumulo.server.rpc.CustomNonBlockingServer$CustomFrameBuffer.read(CustomNonBlockingServer.java:134) > >> at > >> org.apache.thrift.server.AbstractNonblockingServer$AbstractSelectThread.handleRead(AbstractNonblockingServer.java:187) > >> at > >> org.apache.thrift.server.TNonblockingServer$SelectAcceptThread.select(TNonblockingServer.java:189) > >> at > >> org.apache.thrift.server.TNonblockingServer$SelectAcceptThread.run(TNonblockingServer.java:142) > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:52 AM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> From the numbers in the message, it looks like you're sending an 18MB > >>> payload but something in Thrift is limiting things to 16384000 > >>> (16000KB). I doubt you've overridden the default > >>> general.server.message.size.max to be anything that low (the default > >>> is 1G). Unless you're flushing after every mutation, it would not be > >>> surprising to exceed the 16MB max frame size indicated in the error > >>> message quite quickly. > >>> > >>> This value of 16384000 seemed weird. It looks like it's not using our > >>> configuration, but using the built-in default value of > >>> org.apache.thrift.TConfiguration.DEFAULT_MAX_FRAME_SIZE. It looks like > >>> this can happen whenever `new TConfiguration()` is called without > >>> parameters... and there's a fair amount of internal code, mostly in > >>> libthrift itself, that does that. It's a bit tricky to track down the > >>> one causing this particular issue. If you have a full stack trace, it > >>> could help. > >>> > >>> Also, this might be the same issue seen reported in > >>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/3042 > >>> > >>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 8:53 PM Vincent Russell > >>> <vincent.russ...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > I was able to work out all of my compilation issues; however when I > >>> run an > >>> > integration test with the Mini Accumulo Cluster that tests writing > >>> > mutations with values of 5mb the flush hangs forever > >>> > and I see the following logs in the TabletServer logs: > >>> > > >>> > 20:41:02.306 [Thread-7] ERROR > >>> > o.a.a.s.r.CustomNonBlockingServer$CustomFrameBuffer - Read a frame > >>> size of > >>> > 18874697, which is bigger than the maximum allowable frame size > >>> 16384000 > >>> > for ALL connections. > >>> > 20:41:03.582 [Thread-7] ERROR > >>> > o.a.a.s.r.CustomNonBlockingServer$CustomFrameBuffer - Read a frame > >>> size of > >>> > 18874697, which is bigger than the maximum allowable frame size > >>> 16384000 > >>> > for ALL connections. > >>> > 20:41:05.079 [Thread-7] ERROR > >>> > o.a.a.s.r.CustomNonBlockingServer$CustomFrameBuffer - Read a frame > >>> size of > >>> > 18874697, which is bigger than the maximum allowable frame size > >>> 16384000 > >>> > for ALL connections. > >>> > > >>> > Other tests that write smaller amounts of data appear to work fine. > >>> > > >>> > Any idea what the issue might be? > >>> > > >>> > Thank you, > >>> > Vincent > >>> > > >>> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 4:43 PM Vincent Russell < > >>> vincent.russ...@gmail.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > Thank you both for your responses. > >>> > > > >>> > > We are using an event store library from a sister project that was > >>> written > >>> > > for accumulo 1.10., which I have already upgraded to 2.0. > >>> > > > >>> > > I'll spend some time investigating how bad the usage of the internal > >>> > > packages are and get back to you. > >>> > > > >>> > > Thanks again, > >>> > > > >>> > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 3:20 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> > >>> wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > >> To add to Dave's answer, the public API is defined at > >>> > >> https://accumulo.apache.org/api/ > >>> > >> Anything else is not public and is subject to change without notice > >>> on > >>> > >> any release without any attempt to retain compatibility. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 3:10 PM Dave Marion <dmario...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > There is no guide. You are using implementation classes (see > >>> clientImpl > >>> > >> in > >>> > >> > the package name) vs. using the client api. If you can use the > >>> client > >>> > >> api > >>> > >> > directly, then this should insulate you from changes in the future > >>> > >> (except > >>> > >> > during major versions). We can try and find where things might > >>> have > >>> > >> moved, > >>> > >> > but a class may have been split into multiple pieces. If you could > >>> > >> provide > >>> > >> > class and method, that would be easier. > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 2:45 PM Vincent Russell < > >>> > >> vincent.russ...@gmail.com> > >>> > >> > wrote: > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > Is there a guide that shows where classes may have been moved > >>> with > >>> > >> moving > >>> > >> > > from 2.0 to 2.1? For instance, I am having issues compiling, > >>> because > >>> > >> the > >>> > >> > > following class doesn't exist: > >>> > >> > > import org.apache.accumulo.core.clientImpl.Tables; > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > I'm just getting started so I'm sure there are others. > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > Thanks, > >>> > >> > > Vincent > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 9:02 AM Vincent Russell < > >>> > >> vincent.russ...@gmail.com> > >>> > >> > > wrote: > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > I mean Christopher. > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > Thanks again. > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 9:01 AM Vincent Russell < > >>> > >> > > vincent.russ...@gmail.com> > >>> > >> > > > wrote: > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > >> Thank you Chris. > >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> Will will upgrade to Accumulo 2.1 and ZooKeeper 3.7 or > >>> later as > >>> > >> soon as > >>> > >> > > >> possible. > >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:44 PM Christopher < > >>> ctubb...@apache.org> > >>> > >> wrote: > >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >>> Hi Vincent, > >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> > >> > > >>> Version 2.0.1 is end of life as of the 2.1.0 LTM release, > >>> and 2.0 > >>> > >> is > >>> > >> > > >>> not expected to receive any further updates. Version 2.1.0 > >>> may > >>> > >> work > >>> > >> > > >>> with ZooKeeper 3.4, but was developed and tested against > >>> 3.5 and > >>> > >> later > >>> > >> > > >>> versions. I believe the ZooKeeper community is currently > >>> > >> considering > >>> > >> > > >>> whether to make 3.6 end-of-life themselves, so I would > >>> recommend > >>> > >> using > >>> > >> > > >>> Accumulo 2.1.0 with the latest ZooKeeper 3.7 or later to > >>> have the > >>> > >> best > >>> > >> > > >>> chance of any kind of support, including JDK 17 support. > >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> > >> > > >>> As for your specific issues: > >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> > >> > > >>> 1. This is already fixed in 2.1.0 > >>> > >> > > >>> 2/3. These issues are likely fixed in newer ZooKeeper > >>> versions. I > >>> > >> > > >>> haven't seen them anytime recently, anyway. Bugs in > >>> ZooKeeper > >>> > >> itself > >>> > >> > > >>> are out of scope for the Accumulo developers, but I have > >>> tried > >>> > >> > > >>> building Accumulo 2.1.0 with JDK 17 and ZooKeeper 3.8.0 and > >>> > >> haven't > >>> > >> > > >>> observed any unresolved issues. However, it's difficult to > >>> > >> actually > >>> > >> > > >>> run it because I don't think Hadoop has good JDK 17 support > >>> yet. > >>> > >> So, > >>> > >> > > >>> MiniAccumuloCluster seems to work with JDK 17, as does > >>> Accumulo > >>> > >> and ZK > >>> > >> > > >>> 3.8, but I don't think a full Hadoop cluster would (yet). > >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> > >> > > >>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 12:28 PM Vincent Russell > >>> > >> > > >>> <vincent.russ...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > Hello, > >>> > >> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > We are currently using accumulo 2.0.1. > >>> > >> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > We are in the process of upgrading our source code to use > >>> jdk 17 > >>> > >> > > >>> however we > >>> > >> > > >>> > are running into some problems with our tests and the > >>> > >> > > >>> MiniAccumuloCluster. > >>> > >> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > One of our developer encountered the following issues: > >>> > >> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > 1. The MiniAccumumluoClusterImpl._exec is hardcoded > >>> with the > >>> > >> JVM > >>> > >> > > arg > >>> > >> > > >>> > -XX:+IUseConcMarkSweepGC, which is no longer tolerated > >>> with > >>> > >> JDK17. > >>> > >> > > >>> > 2. In Zookeeper 3.4.14, ConetStringParser uses > >>> > >> createUnresolved to > >>> > >> > > >>> > make IPAddresses. > >>> > >> > > >>> SaslServerPrincipal.WrapperInetSocketAddress.getAddress > >>> > >> > > >>> > uses InetSocketAddess.getAddress, which returns null > >>> because > >>> > >> it's > >>> > >> > > >>> not > >>> > >> > > >>> > resolved, resulting in a failure to connect to the > >>> > >> newly-started > >>> > >> > > >>> zookeeper. > >>> > >> > > >>> > 3. StaticHostProvider.getHostString() tries to extract > >>> he > >>> > >> hostname > >>> > >> > > >>> by > >>> > >> > > >>> > calling toString on the address and taking everything > >>> before > >>> > >> the > >>> > >> > > >>> colon, but > >>> > >> > > >>> > in JDK17, the string format changed to > >>> > >> > > "localhost/<unresolved->:xx" > >>> > >> > > >>> (where > >>> > >> > > >>> > XX is still the port number). That's incorrect and it > >>> can't > >>> > >> > > >>> resolve the > >>> > >> > > >>> > names. > >>> > >> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > Has anyone come across/resolved these kinds of issues? > >>> Is it > >>> > >> not > >>> > >> > > >>> possible > >>> > >> > > >>> > to use java17 from a client perspective? Will upgrading > >>> to > >>> > >> accumulo > >>> > >> > > >>> 2.1 > >>> > >> > > >>> > help? > >>> > >> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > Thanks, > >>> > >> > > >>> > Vincent > >>> > >> > > >>> > >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > >>> > > > >>> > >>
