[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-1030?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13236273#comment-13236273
]
[email protected] commented on FLUME-1030:
------------------------------------------------------
bq. On 2012-03-22 17:07:01, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
bq. > Thanks for the patch Juhani. I was able to run the tests successfully. I
have some minor feedback below for your consideration.
thanks for running the tests. back to normal on my end too
bq. On 2012-03-22 17:07:01, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
bq. >
flume-ng-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/sink/FailoverSinkProcessor.java,
line 90
bq. > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4445/diff/1/?file=94575#file94575line90>
bq. >
bq. > It will be good to cap this penalty amount to a
predefined/configured ceiling value.
Added a config variable
bq. On 2012-03-22 17:07:01, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
bq. >
flume-ng-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/sink/FailoverSinkProcessor.java,
lines 120-121
bq. > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4445/diff/1/?file=94575#file94575line120>
bq. >
bq. > There is one slight issue here though - which is if the channel is
empty, the sink being attempted to recover will likely return BACKOFF, implying
that the sink is normal and has recovered.
bq. >
bq. > A minor nit: it will be nice if the process invocation on the failed
sink was from within the process() that calls the active Sink. That way the
logic stays in one place.
I got rid of the queue subclass and put the code in process... Though I'm not
sure if that is the easiest way for the human brain to parse it...
I also changed things so that a backoff results in being returned to the failed
list without a penalty
- Juhani
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/4445/#review6231
-----------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-03-22 08:23:00, Juhani Connolly wrote:
bq.
bq. -----------------------------------------------------------
bq. This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
bq. https://reviews.apache.org/r/4445/
bq. -----------------------------------------------------------
bq.
bq. (Updated 2012-03-22 08:23:00)
bq.
bq.
bq. Review request for Flume.
bq.
bq.
bq. Summary
bq. -------
bq.
bq. As discussed in the JIRA item, I modified FailoverSink to deal with all
exceptions.
bq. Now a sink that fails will be put onto a failed links queue, from which a
recovery will be attempted after a timeout. Each sequential failure the timeout
will increase. I am open to other methods of increasing the timeout(maybe add
on a ceiling?)
bq.
bq.
bq. This addresses bug FLUME-1030.
bq. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-1030
bq.
bq.
bq. Diffs
bq. -----
bq.
bq.
flume-ng-core/src/test/java/org/apache/flume/sink/TestFailoverSinkProcessor.java
195c121
bq.
flume-ng-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flume/sink/FailoverSinkProcessor.java
7eada57
bq.
bq. Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4445/diff
bq.
bq.
bq. Testing
bq. -------
bq.
bq. Modified the test for the new functionality, new test passes
bq.
bq. No other tests should be affected, but my environment was having some
weird problems. I'll look into them tomorrow, just leaving this up so people
can have a browse and will confirm tests passing tomorrow
bq.
bq.
bq. Thanks,
bq.
bq. Juhani
bq.
bq.
> Distinguish between temporary and longterm failure to avoid repeated beating
> on dead components
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLUME-1030
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-1030
> Project: Flume
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Sinks+Sources
> Reporter: Juhani Connolly
> Assignee: Juhani Connolly
> Fix For: v1.2.0
>
>
> One may want to refer to FLUME-984 for some history of this.
> As it stands, a sink can have several outcomes:
> - OK - succesfully transferred some data
> - TRY_LATER - no data to transfer
> - throw EventDeliveryException - Give the sink a short breather to recover,
> then try again
> - throw anything else - get logged and more or less ignored
> I don't think the last choice in particular is a good idea as it encourages
> throwing Sink specific exceptions. Further, there is no distinction between
> temporary disconnectivity(e.g. HBase timed out because of a compaction or
> something), and more permanent problems(e.g. cannot write to a file).
> One solution to this is to add a second type of exception that delivery
> mechanisms can throw, ConnectivityException/FatalException or something
> similar. For the purposes of any failover/load balancing mechanism this would
> signal that a component is out of order for a more significant amount of time
> and thus constant polling should be stopped(perhaps retry it every 5 minutes
> instead, or have an exponentially increasing retry time).
> If adding another exception is not deemed acceptable, there is always the
> possibility of expecting SinkProcessors to figure out if a sink is dead...
> E.g. counting sequential failures, though I do not think this is ideal. I
> would prefer to see a clear contract defined by SinkRunner that well behaved
> sinks could adhere to and get the benefits of graceful temporary/longterm
> failure from.
> If someone has other suggestions for distinguishing between temporary and
> longer term failure please let me know. As it stands, components that are
> unresponsive can and do get called constantly, and some components trigger
> retries and can actually block a SinkRunner thread for a fair while.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
