[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3332?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16501061#comment-16501061
]
Koji Kawamura commented on NIFI-3332:
-------------------------------------
[~doaks80] Would you elaborate your issue?
* Does ListSFTP completely miss some files, or is that just delaying? The
processor heavily relies on file timestamps, and if your target FTP only
provides timestamp in minute resolution, it can take more than 1 minute to list
the new files.
* If you see some files are not listed at all, and encountered the issue again,
please take followings and share:
** The file list including listed files and the one expected to be listed and
their file timestamps captured by other mean, e.g. FTP command line
** NiFi provenance events for your ListSFTP by right clicking the processor and
select 'View data provenance'
** ListSFTP's managed state by right clicking the processor and select 'View
State'
Using above information, we may be able to track what goes wrong. Thanks for
reporting.
> 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
> Fix For: 1.4.0
>
> Attachments: Test-showing-ListFile-timestamp-bug.log,
> Test-showing-ListFile-timestamp-bug.patch, listfiles.png
>
>
> 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
(v7.6.3#76005)
