Ryan, OK, thanks. So the “100 based on the max size” is… “fun.” Not entirely sure when that property made it into nifi.properties - I’m guessing that when the max.appendable.claim.size was added, we intended to also implement a max number of FlowFiles. But it was never implemented. So I think this probably has never been used and it was just a bug that it ever made it into nifi.properties. I think that was actually cleaned up in 1.12.0.
What will be interesting is if you wait, say 5 minutes, and then run the diagnostics dump again. Are there any files that previously had a Claimant Count of 0 and that had In Use = false, that still exist with a Claimant Count of 0? If not, then at least we know that cleanup is working properly. If there are, then that would indicate that the content repo is not cleaning up properly. On Sep 17, 2020, at 3:38 PM, Ryan Hendrickson <ryan.andrew.hendrick...@gmail.com<mailto:ryan.andrew.hendrick...@gmail.com>> wrote: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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 * PutElasticsearchHttp * 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 10:19 AM To: users@nifi.apache.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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.
