That's not it either. I just had all my consumers shut down on me with this:
INFO 21:51:13,948 () ZkUtils$ - conflict in
/consumers/flurry1/owners/dataLogPaths/1-183 data:
flurry1_hs1030-1376964634130-dcc9192a-0 stored data:
flurry1_hs1061-1376964609207-4b7f348b-0
INFO 21:51:13,948 () ZookeeperConsumerConnector -
flurry1_hs1030-1376964634130-dcc9192a waiting for the partition ownership to be
deleted: 1-183
INFO 21:51:13,950 () ZookeeperConsumerConnector -
flurry1_hs1030-1376964634130-dcc9192a flurry1_hs1030-1376964634130-dcc9192a-0
successfully owned partition 1-180 for topic dataLogPaths
and I've also been seeing:
INFO 21:51:15,971 () ZookeeperConsumerConnector -
flurry1_hs1030-1376964634130-dcc9192a begin rebalancing consumer
flurry1_hs1030-1376964634130-dcc9192a try #3
INFO 21:51:16,038 () ZookeeperConsumerConnector -
flurry1_hs1030-1376964634130-dcc9192a exception during rebalance
org.I0Itec.zkclient.exception.ZkNoNodeException:
org.apache.zookeeper.KeeperException$NoNodeException: KeeperErrorCode = NoNode
for /consumers/flurry1/ids/flurry1_hs676-1376964612747-6f532caa
at org.I0Itec.zkclient.exception.ZkException.create(ZkException.java:47)
at org.I0Itec.zkclient.ZkClient.retryUntilConnected(ZkClient.java:685)
at org.I0Itec.zkclient.ZkClient.readData(ZkClient.java:766)
at org.I0Itec.zkclient.ZkClient.readData(ZkClient.java:761)
at org.I0Itec.zkclient.ZkClient.readData(ZkClient.java:750)
at org.I0Itec.zkclient.ZkClient.readData(ZkClient.java:744)
at kafka.utils.ZkUtils$.readData(ZkUtils.scala:162)
at kafka.consumer.TopicCount$.constructTopicCount(TopicCount.scala:66)
at
kafka.utils.ZkUtils$$anonfun$getConsumersPerTopic$1.apply(ZkUtils.scala:259)
at
kafka.utils.ZkUtils$$anonfun$getConsumersPerTopic$1.apply(ZkUtils.scala:258)
at scala.collection.Iterator$class.foreach(Iterator.scala:631)
at
scala.collection.JavaConversions$JIteratorWrapper.foreach(JavaConversions.scala:474)
at scala.collection.IterableLike$class.foreach(IterableLike.scala:79)
at
scala.collection.JavaConversions$JListWrapper.foreach(JavaConversions.scala:521)
at kafka.utils.ZkUtils$.getConsumersPerTopic(ZkUtils.scala:258)
at
kafka.consumer.ZookeeperConsumerConnector$ZKRebalancerListener.kafka$consumer$ZookeeperConsumerConnector$ZKRebalancerListener$$rebalance(ZookeeperConsumerConnector.scala:478)
at
kafka.consumer.ZookeeperConsumerConnector$ZKRebalancerListener$$anonfun$syncedRebalance$1.apply$mcVI$sp(ZookeeperConsumerConnector.scala:449)
at
scala.collection.immutable.Range$ByOne$class.foreach$mVc$sp(Range.scala:285)
at
scala.collection.immutable.Range$$anon$2.foreach$mVc$sp(Range.scala:265)
at
kafka.consumer.ZookeeperConsumerConnector$ZKRebalancerListener.syncedRebalance(ZookeeperConsumerConnector.scala:444)
at
kafka.consumer.ZookeeperConsumerConnector$ZKRebalancerListener$$anon$1.run(ZookeeperConsumerConnector.scala:401)
Caused by: org.apache.zookeeper.KeeperException$NoNodeException:
KeeperErrorCode = NoNode for
/consumers/flurry1/ids/flurry1_hs676-1376964612747-6f532caa
at org.apache.zookeeper.KeeperException.create(KeeperException.java:111)
at org.apache.zookeeper.KeeperException.create(KeeperException.java:51)
at org.apache.zookeeper.ZooKeeper.getData(ZooKeeper.java:1151)
at org.apache.zookeeper.ZooKeeper.getData(ZooKeeper.java:1180)
at org.I0Itec.zkclient.ZkConnection.readData(ZkConnection.java:103)
at org.I0Itec.zkclient.ZkClient$9.call(ZkClient.java:770)
at org.I0Itec.zkclient.ZkClient$9.call(ZkClient.java:766)
at org.I0Itec.zkclient.ZkClient.retryUntilConnected(ZkClient.java:675)
... 19 more
INFO 21:51:16,039 () ZookeeperConsumerConnector -
flurry1_hs1030-1376964634130-dcc9192a end rebalancing consumer
flurry1_hs1030-1376964634130-dcc9192a try #3
any ideas?
--
Ian Friedman
On Monday, August 19, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Jun Rao wrote:
> Any failure/restart of a consumer or a broker can also trigger a rebalance.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jun
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Ian Friedman <i...@flurry.com
> (mailto:i...@flurry.com)> wrote:
>
> > Jun, I read that FAQ entry you linked, but I am not seeing any Zookeeper
> > connection loss in the logs. It's rebalancing multiple times per minute,
> > though. Any idea what else could cause this? We're running kafka 0.7.2 on
> > approx 400 consumers against a topic with 400 partitions * 3 brokers.
> >
> > --
> > Ian Friedman
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, August 15, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jun Rao wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, during rebalances, messages could be re-delievered since the new
> > owner
> > > of a partition starts fetching from the last checkpointed offset in ZK.
> > >
> > > For reasons on why rebalances happen a lot, see
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/FAQ#FAQ-Whyaretheremanyrebalancesinmyconsumerlog%3F
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jun
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Ian Friedman <i...@flurry.com
> > > (mailto:i...@flurry.com) (mailto:
> > i...@flurry.com (mailto:i...@flurry.com))> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's a simple enough patch, but wouldn't this mean that messages still
> > in
> > > > process when a rebalance happens could get delivered to another
> > >
> >
> > consumer if
> > > > we end up losing the partition? Rebalances seem to happen very
> > >
> >
> > frequently
> > > > with a lot of consumers for some reason… And it doesn't seem like a
> > > > consumer is guaranteed or likely to retain ownership of a partition
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > it's in
> > > > the middle of consuming after a rebalance.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ian Friedman
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, August 15, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Jun Rao wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We are only patching blocker issues in 0.7. 0.8 beta1 has been
> > released
> > > > and
> > > > > most dev effort will be on 0.8 and beyond. That said. This particular
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > case
> > > > > is easy to fix. If you can port the patch in
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-919 o the 0.7 branch ,
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > we
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > can
> > > > > commit that to the 0.7 branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jun
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Ian Friedman <i...@flurry.com
> > > > > (mailto:i...@flurry.com)(mailto:
> > i...@flurry.com (mailto:i...@flurry.com)) (mailto:
> > > > i...@flurry.com (mailto:i...@flurry.com))> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ugh.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there any way to make this work in 0.7, or is transitioning to
> > 0.8
> > > > the
> > > > > > only way? My operations engineers spent a lot of effort in
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > configuring
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > > > > hardening our 0.7 production install, and 0.8 isn't released yet.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > Not
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to
> > > > > > mention having to integrate the new client side code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Either way, thanks for all your help Jun.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Ian Friedman
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 15, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Jun Rao wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, this is an issue and has been fixed in 0.8.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jun
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Ian Friedman <i...@flurry.com
> > > > > > > (mailto:i...@flurry.com)(mailto:
> > i...@flurry.com (mailto:i...@flurry.com))(mailto:
> > > > i...@flurry.com (mailto:i...@flurry.com)) (mailto:
> > > > > > i...@flurry.com (mailto:i...@flurry.com))> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey guys,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I designed my consumer app (running on 0.7) to run with
> > autocommit
> > > > off
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > commit manually once it was done processing a record. The
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > intent
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > was so
> > > > > > > > that if a consumer died while processing a message, the offset
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > would
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > not be
> > > > > > > > committed, and another box would pick up the partition and
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > reprocess
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > message. This seemed to work fine with small numbers of
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > consumers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (~10).
> > > > > > > > But now that I'm scaling it out, I'm running into a problem
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > where
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > it
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > like messages that consumers picked up and then errored on are
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > not
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > > processed on another machine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > After investigating the logs and the partition offsets in
> > > > zookeeper, I
> > > > > > > > found that in ZookeeperConsumerConnector.scala
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > closeFetchersForQueues,
> > > > > > > > called during the rebalance process, will commit the offset
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > regardless
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the autocommit status. So it looks like even if my consumer is
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > in
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > middle of processing a message, the offset will be committed,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > and
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > even
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > the processing fails, it will never be picked up again. Now
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > that I
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > lot of consumer nodes, the rebalancer is going off a lot more
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > often
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and I'm
> > > > > > > > running into this constantly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Were my assumptions faulty? Did I design this wrong? After
> > reading
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > comment in the code I understand that if it didn't commit the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > offset
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > there,
> > > > > > > > the message would just get immediately consumed by whoever
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ended up
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > owning
> > > > > > > > the partition, even if we were in the middle of consuming it
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > elsewhere, and
> > > > > > > > we'd get unintentional duplicate delivery. How can I make it
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > work
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > I've described? Is there any way?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Ian Friedman
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
