[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3332?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15876258#comment-15876258
]
Joe Skora commented on NIFI-3332:
---------------------------------
[~ijokarumawak] and [~mosermw] The lag algorithm may work if the location
being watched represents original timestamps in real time, but there is no way
to prevent problems if the processor runs while files are being created,
copied, or renamed. Changing the lag time cannot eliminate the underlying
problem, so as system and infrastructure loads vary a reliable flow may become
unreliable. The new test highlights that, regardless of probability, the
processors can fail to process some inputs if multiple inputs can exist for a
discrete timestamp value (one millisecond for {{ListFile}}).
If we choose not to fix this and stay with the current implementation we need
to clearly and obviously document that the {{ListXXX}} processors may fail to
process all potential inputs without any warning, and that unless a flow
deletes inputs after they are processed it may be hard or impossible to
identify the unprocessed inputs.
> Bug in ListXXX causes matching timestamps to be ignored on later runs
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: NIFI-3332
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3332
> Project: Apache NiFi
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core Framework
> Affects Versions: 0.7.1, 1.1.1
> Reporter: Joe Skora
> Assignee: Koji Kawamura
> Priority: Critical
> Attachments: Test-showing-ListFile-timestamp-bug.log,
> Test-showing-ListFile-timestamp-bug.patch
>
>
> The new state implementation for the ListXXX processors based on
> AbstractListProcessor creates a race conditions when processor runs occur
> while a batch of files is being written with the same timestamp.
> The changes to state management dropped tracking of the files processed for a
> given timestamp. Without the record of files processed, the remainder of the
> batch is ignored on the next processor run since their timestamp is not
> greater than the one timestamp stored in processor state. With the file
> tracking it was possible to process files that matched the timestamp exactly
> and exclude the previously processed files.
> A basic time goes as follows.
> T0 - system creates or receives batch of files with Tx timestamp where Tx
> is more than the current timestamp in processor state.
> T1 - system writes 1st half of Tx batch to the ListFile source directory.
> T2 - ListFile runs picking up 1st half of Tx batch and stores Tx timestamp
> in processor state.
> T3 - system writes 2nd half of Tx batch to ListFile source directory.
> T4 - ListFile runs ignoring any files with T <= Tx, eliminating 2nd half Tx
> timestamp batch.
> I've attached a patch[1] for TestListFile.java that adds an instrumented unit
> test demonstrates the problem and a log[2] of the output from one such run.
> The test writes 3 files each in two batches with processor runs after each
> batch. Batch 2 writes files with timestamps older than, equal to, and newer
> than the timestamp stored when batch 1 was processed, but only the newer file
> is picked up. The older file is correctly ignored but file with the matchin
> timestamp file should have been processed.
> [1] Test-showing-ListFile-timestamp-bug.patch
> [2] Test-showing-ListFile-timestamp-bug.log
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
