A couple things from it:
1. The sum of the "Claimant counts" equals the number of FlowFiles reported
on the Canvas.
2. None are Awaiting Destruction
3. Claimant Count Lowest number is 1 (when it's not zero)
4. Claimant Count Highest number is 4,773 (Should this one be 100 based on
the max size, but maybe not if more than 100 is read in a single session?)
5. The sum of the "References" is 64,814.
6. The lowest Reference is 1 (when it's not zero)
7. The highest Reference is 4,773
8. Some References have Swap Files (10,006) and others have FlowFiles (470)
9. There are 10,468 "In Use"
Anything there stick out to anyone?
Thanks,
Ryan
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 2:29 PM Ryan Hendrickson <
ryan.andrew.hendrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Correction - it did work. I was expecting it to be in the same folder as
> where I ran nifi.sh from, vs NIFI_HOME.
>
> Reviewing it now...
>
> Ryan
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM Ryan Hendrickson <
> ryan.andrew.hendrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Mark,
>> I should have mentioned the PutElasticsearchHttp is going to 2 different
>> clusters. We did play with different thread counts for each of them. At
>> one point were wondering if too large a Batch Size would make the threads
>> block each.
>>
>> It looks like PutElasticsearchHttp serializes every FlowFile to verify
>> it's a well-formed JSON document [1]. That alone feels pretty CPU
>> expensive.. In our case, we know already we have valid JSON. Just as an
>> anecdotal benchmark.. A combination of [MergeContent + 2x InvokeHTTP] uses
>> a total of 9 threads to accomplish the same thing that [2x DistributeLoad +
>> 2x PutElasticsearchHTTP] does with 50 threads. DistributeLoad's need 5
>> threads each to keep up. PutElasticsearchHTTP needs about 10 each.
>>
>> PutElasticsearchHTTP is configured like this:
>> Index: ${esIndex}
>> Batch Size: 3000
>> Index Operation: Index
>>
>> For the ./nifi.sh diagnostics --verbose diagnostics1.txt, I had to export
>> TOOLS_JAR on the command line to the path where tools.jar was located.
>>
>> I'm not getting a file written out though. I still have the "full" NiFi
>> up and running. I assume that should be? Do I need to change my
>> logback.xml levels at all?
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/aa741cc5967f62c3c38c2a47e712b7faa6fe19ff/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-elasticsearch-bundle/nifi-elasticsearch-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/elasticsearch/PutElasticsearchHttp.java#L299
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ryan
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:43 AM Mark Payne <marka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ryan,
>>>
>>> Why are you using DistributeLoad to go to two different
>>> PutElasticsearchHttp processors? Does that perform better for you than a
>>> single PutElasticsearchHttp processors with multiple concurrent tasks? It
>>> shouldn’t really. I’ve never used that processor, but if two instances of
>>> the processor perform significantly better than 1 instance with 2
>>> concurrent tasks, that’s probably worth looking into.
>>>
>>> -Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 17, 2020, at 11:38 AM, Ryan Hendrickson <
>>> ryan.andrew.hendrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> @Joe I can't export the flow.xml.gz easily, although it's pretty
>>> simple. We put just the following on it's own server because
>>> DistributeLoad (bug [1]) and PutElasticsearchHttp have a hard time keeping
>>> up.
>>>
>>> 1. Input Port
>>> 2. ControlRate (data rate | 1.7GB | 5 min)
>>> 3. Update Attributes (Delete Attribute Regex)
>>> 4. JoltTransformJSON
>>> 5. FlattenJSONArray (Custom.. takes a 1 level JSON Array and turns
>>> it into Objects)
>>> 6. DistributeLoad
>>> 1. PutElasticsearchHttp
>>> 2. PutElasticsearchHttp
>>>
>>>
>>> Unrelated.. We're experimenting with a MergeContent + InvokeHTTP combo
>>> to see if that's more performant than PutElasticsearchHttp.. The Elastic
>>> one uses an ObjectMapper, and string replacements, etc. It seems to cap
>>> out around 2-3GB/5 minutes
>>>
>>> @Mark I'll check the diagnostics.
>>>
>>> @Jim definitely disk space 100% used.
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1121
>>>
>>> Ryan
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:33 AM Williams, Jim <jwilli...@alertlogic.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ryan,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this this maybe a case of exhausting inodes on the filesystem rather
>>>> than exhausting the space available? If you do a ‘df -I’ on the system
>>>> what do you see for inode usage?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Warm regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <image001.jpg> <https://www.alertlogic.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *Jim Williams* | Manager, Site Reliability Engineering
>>>>
>>>> O: +1 713.341.7812 | C: +1 919.523.8767 | jwilli...@alertlogic.com |
>>>> alertlogic.com <http://www.alertlogic.com/> <image002.png>
>>>> <https://twitter.com/alertlogic><image003.png>
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/alert-logic>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <image004.png>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2020 10:19 AM
>>>> *To:* users@nifi.apache.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: Content Claims Filling Disk - Best practice for small
>>>> files?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> can you share your flow.xml.gz?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 8:08 AM Ryan Hendrickson <
>>>> ryan.andrew.hendrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 1.12.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Ryan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:04 AM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ryan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What version are you using? I do think we had an issue that kept items
>>>> around longer than intended that has been addressed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 7:58 AM Ryan Hendrickson <
>>>> ryan.andrew.hendrick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I've got ~15 million FlowFiles, each roughly 4KB, totally in about 55GB
>>>> of data on my canvas.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, the content repository (on it's own partition) is
>>>> completely full with 350GB of data. I'm pretty certain the way Content
>>>> Claims store the data is responsible for this. In previous experience,
>>>> we've had files that are larger, and haven't seen this as much.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My guess is that as data was streaming through and being added to a
>>>> claim, it isn't always released as the small files leaves the canvas.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We've run into this issue enough times that I figure there's probably a
>>>> "best practice for small files" for the content claims settings.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These are our current settings:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> nifi.content.repository.implementation=org.apache.nifi.controller.repository.FileSystemRepository
>>>>
>>>> nifi.content.claim.max.appendable.size=1 MB
>>>>
>>>> nifi.content.claim.max.flow.files=100
>>>>
>>>> nifi.content.repository.directory.default=/var/nifi/repositories/content
>>>>
>>>> nifi.content.repository.archive.max.retention.period=12 hours
>>>>
>>>> nifi.content.repository.archive.max.usage.percentage=50%
>>>>
>>>> nifi.content.repository.archive.enabled=true
>>>>
>>>> nifi.content.repository.always.sync=false
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://nifi.apache.org/docs/nifi-docs/html/administration-guide.html#content-repository
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's 1024 folders on the disk (0-1023) for the Content Claims.
>>>>
>>>> Each file inside the folders are roughly 2MB to 8 MB (Which is odd
>>>> because I thought the max appendable size would make this no larger than
>>>> 1MB.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there a way to expand the number of folders and/or reduce the amount
>>>> of individual FlowFiles that are stored in the claims?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm hoping there might be a best practice out there though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Ryan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Confidentiality Notice | This email and any included attachments may be
>>>> privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure. Access
>>>> to this email by anyone other than the intended recipient is unauthorized.
>>>> If you believe you have received this email in error, please contact the
>>>> sender immediately and delete all copies. If you are not the intended
>>>> recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or
>>>> taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
>>>> strictly prohibited.
>>>>
>>>> *Disclaimer*
>>>>
>>>> The information contained in this communication from the sender is
>>>> confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others
>>>> authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby
>>>> notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in
>>>> relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may
>>>> be unlawful.
>>>>
>>>> This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been
>>>> automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber
>>>> resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection,
>>>> security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential
>>>> capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from
>>>> malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the
>>>> movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit
>>>> our website.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
