Hi Petter, When we verified that all data was inserted we found that some data was > missing. We added this missing data and on some chunks we got the > information that all rows were already present, i.e impala says something > like Modified: 0 rows, nnnnnnn errors. Doing the verification again now > shows that the Kudu table is complete. So, even though we did not insert > any data on some chunks, a count(*) operation over these chunks now returns > a different value.
How did you verify that all the data was inserted and how did you find some data missing? I'm wondering if it's possible that the initial "missing" data was data that Kudu was still in the process of inserting (albeit slowly, due to memory backpressure or somesuch). Now to my question. Will data be inconsistent if we recycle Kudu after > seeing soft memory limit warnings? Your data should be consistently written, even with those warnings. AFAIK they would cause a bit of slowness, not incorrect results. Is there a way to tell when it is safe to restart Kudu to avoid these > issues? Should we use any special procedure when restarting (e.g. only > restart the tablet servers, only restart one tablet server at a time or > something like that)? In general, you can use the `ksck` tool to check the health of your cluster. See https://kudu.apache.org/docs/command_line_tools_reference.html#cluster-ksck for more details. For restarting a cluster, I would recommend taking down all tablet servers at once, otherwise tablet replicas may try to replicate data from the server that was taken down. Hope this helped, Andrew On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Petter von Dolwitz (Hem) < petter.von.dolw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Kudu users, > > We just started to use Kudu (1.4.0+cdh5.12.1). To make a baseline for > evaluation we ingested 3 month worth of data. During ingestion we were > facing messages from the maintenance threads that a soft memory limit were > reached. It seems like the background maintenance threads stopped > performing their tasks at this point in time. It also so seems like the > memory was never recovered even after stopping ingestion so I guess there > was a large backlog being built up. I guess the root cause here is that we > were a bit too conservative when giving Kudu memory. After a reststart a > lot of maintenance tasks were started (i.e. compaction). > > When we verified that all data was inserted we found that some data was > missing. We added this missing data and on some chunks we got the > information that all rows were already present, i.e impala says something > like Modified: 0 rows, nnnnnnn errors. Doing the verification again now > shows that the Kudu table is complete. So, even though we did not insert > any data on some chunks, a count(*) operation over these chunks now returns > a different value. > > Now to my question. Will data be inconsistent if we recycle Kudu after > seeing soft memory limit warnings? > > Is there a way to tell when it is safe to restart Kudu to avoid these > issues? Should we use any special procedure when restarting (e.g. only > restart the tablet servers, only restart one tablet server at a time or > something like that)? > > The table design uses 50 tablets per day (times 90 days). It is 8 TB of > data after 3xreplication over 5 tablet servers. > > Thanks, > Petter > > > -- Andrew Wong
