Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Zookeeper >> mail # dev >> Does abrupt kill corrupts the datadir?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: FW: Does abrupt kill corrupts the datadir?
almost everything we do in zookkeeper is to make sure that we don't
lose data in much worse scenarios. the probably of a loss in this
scenario is really just the probability of a bug in the code. i don't
think that kill -TERM vs kill -KILL changes that probability at all
either way.

ben

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Laxman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the responses Mahadev, Pat and Ben.
> I understand your explanation.
>
> My only question is "Will there be any probability data loss in the scenario
> mentioned?"
>
>>>>In worst case, if latest snaps in all zookeeper nodes gets corrupted
> there is a chance of data loss.
>
>>>if we use sigterm in the script, we would want to put a timeout in to
> escalate to a -9
>
> As Ben mentioned, even if we escalate to "kill -9" to ensure shutdown, still
> we may have data loss. But the probability is very less by giving a chance
> to shutdown gracefully.
>
> Please do correct me if my understanding is wrong.
> --
> Laxman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 11:40 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FW: Does abrupt kill corrupts the datadir?
>
> i agree with pat. if we use sigterm in the script, we would want to
> put a timeout in to escalate to a -9 which makes the script a bit more
> complicated without reason since we don't have any exit hooks that we
> want to run. zookeeper is designed to recover well from hard failures,
> much worse than a kill -9. i don't think we want to change that.
>
> ben
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Patrick Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ZK has been built around the "fail fast" approach. In order to
>> maintain high availability we want to ensure that restarting a server
>> will result in it attempting to rejoin the quorum. IMO we would not
>> want to change this (kill -9).
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Laxman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>> Do we need consider changing abrupt shutdown to
>>>
>>> Implementations in some other hadoop eco system projects for your
> reference.
>>> Hadoop - kill [SIGTERM]
>>> HBase - kill [SIGTERM] and then "kill -9" [SIGKILL] if process hung
>>> ZooKeeper - "kill -9" [SIGKILL]
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Laxman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:36 PM
>>> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>>> Subject: RE: Does abrupt kill corrupts the datadir?
>>>
>>> Hi Mahadev,
>>>
>>> Shutdown hook is just a quick thought. Another approach can be just give
> a
>>> kill [SIGTERM] call which can be interpreted by process.
>>>
>>> First look at the "kill -9" triggered the following scenario.
>>>>In worst case, if latest snaps in all zookeeper nodes gets corrupted
> there
>>>>is a chance of dataloss.
>>>
>>> How does zookeeper can deal with this scenario gracefully?
>>>
>>> Also, I feel we should give a chance to application to shutdown
> gracefully
>>> before abrupt shutdown.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGKILL
>>>
>>> Because SIGKILL gives the process no opportunity to do cleanup operations
> on
>>> terminating, in most system shutdown procedures an attempt is first made
> to
>>> terminate processes using SIGTERM, before resorting to SIGKILL.
>>>
>>> http://rackerhacker.com/2010/03/18/sigterm-vs-sigkill/
>>>
>>> The application can determine what it wants to do once a SIGTERM is
>>> received. While most applications will clean up their resources and stop,
>>> some may not. An application may be configured to do something completely
>>> different when a SIGTERM is received. Also, if the application is in a
> bad
>>> state, such as waiting for disk I/O, it may not be able to act on the
> signal
>>> that was sent.
>>>
>>> Most system administrators will usually resort to the more abrupt signal
>>> when an application doesn't respond to a SIGTERM.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mahadev Konar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB