One more update: 

running the job with the -XX:-UseLoopPredicate option gave the same results. 
The difference between mapper output records and reducer input records is 
persistent.

Thanks!

Vyacheslav

On Aug 17, 2011, at 3:56 AM, Scott Carey wrote:

> On 8/16/11 3:56 PM, "Vyacheslav Zholudev" <vyacheslav.zholu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi, Scott,
>> 
>> thanks for your reply.
>> 
>>> What Avro version is this happening with? What JVM version?
>> 
>> We are using Avro 1.5.1 and Sun JDK 6, but the exact version I will have
>> to look up.
>> 
>>> 
>>> On a hunch, have you tried adding -XX:-UseLoopPredicate to the JVM args
>>> if
>>> it is Sun and JRE 6u21 or later? (some issues in loop predicates affect
>>> Java 6 too, just not as many as the recent news on Java7).
>>> 
>>> Otherwise, it may likely be the same thing as AVRO-782.  Any extra
>>> information related to that issue would be welcome.
>> 
>> I will have to collect it. In the meanwhile, do you have any reasonable
>> explanations of the issue besides it being something like AVRO-782?
> 
> What is your key type (map output schema, first type argument of Pair)?
> Is your key a Utf8 or String?  I don't have a reasonable explanation at
> this point, I haven't looked into it in depth with a good reproducible
> case.  I have my suspicions with how recycling of the key works since Utf8
> is mutable and its backing byte[] can end up shared.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Thanks a lot,
>> Vyacheslav
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> -Scott
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 8/16/11 8:39 AM, "Vyacheslav Zholudev"
>>> <vyacheslav.zholu...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm having multiple hadoop jobs that use the avro mapred API.
>>>> Only in one of the jobs I have a visible mismatch between a number of
>>>> map
>>>> output records and reducer input records.
>>>> 
>>>> Does anybody encountered such a behavior? Can anybody think of possible
>>>> explanations of this phenomenon?
>>>> 
>>>> Any pointers/thoughts are highly appreciated!
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Vyacheslav
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> Vyacheslav
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to