Nathan,

That is exactly what was happening.

Thanks,

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Vincent Russell <vincent.russ...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you Nathan.  I just looked at the serializer and there is one case
> where it can return null.  I am going to add more debugging and retry.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Nathan Leung <ncle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What does the code for your kryo serializer look like?  Are you sure that
>> it is not returning null?  Kryo will only be used to serialize if your
>> tuple is crossing worker boundaries; when you have 1 worker everything is
>> more or less passed by reference (through some queues and whatnot, but it
>> does not get serialized).  Since you are using custom serializer, I would
>> take a look at those first.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Vincent Russell <
>> vincent.russ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just to add additional information to this tread.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - I am using custom kryo serializers that I have registered.
>>>    - I turned on debug logging and I see debug messages (in my
>>>    serializer) for the serialization of the event put in the tuple but I see
>>>    no corresponding deserialization debug log so it looks like 
>>> deserialization
>>>    isn't even being attempted.
>>>    - The .toString() on the tuple looks like this: (source: parse:30,
>>>    stream: data, id: {-8767240739148856227=2139281104057768924}, [null])
>>>    - I see no errors in the logs from storm
>>>
>>>
>>> Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Vincent Russell <
>>> vincent.russ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> When I change my topology workers from 1 to 2 my topology starts
>>>> sending tuples with null values.  Is there a reason why this might happen?
>>>>  The tuple isn't null, but when I call getValueByField I get a null value.
>>>>  Is there a size limit for a tuple that I might be crossing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm using storm version 0.9.0.1.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Vincent
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to