Thanks Chris for the quick reply. I'll explain the behavior I'm seeing, and then maybe you all could either confirm this is the intended behavior, or decide it's maybe not that great.
My understanding of the happy case for running a user-initiated compaction is that a fate/transaction gets created in zookeeper, and the Accumulo master node ends up farming off the compactions to the correct tablet servers, once the tablets have been completed, somehow the fates/transactions in zookeeper get cleaned up. I experienced a problem, however, in the unhappy case for compactions which I have since reproduced. We had a custom iterator configured for a table, and that custom iterator was in a bad state (i.e. it was always throwing an exception during initialization). What we noticed is that the fates are indefinitely stuck IN_PROGRESS and never go away in this case. Effectively we have a poison pill, and if you issue too many compactions against that table, you can cause other bad problems. I created a repo to demonstrate the problem as succinctly as I could manage: https://github.com/loganasherjones/accumulo-iterator-failures I thought initially that maybe it was due to the fact that our iterator was throwing an error during initialization, but this appears to be happening for any error on next, seek, or init calls. So my questions are 1. Is it expected that a failure in a seek, next, or init in an iterator during a user-initiated compaction would cause accumulo to non-stop retry the compaction 2. If so, could you help me understand why? Thanks in advance, - Logan On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 6:31 PM Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote: > Yes, either here (especially if it's related to a bug or proposed code > change) or at user@ would work, if it's more of a user question. Here is > fine if you're not sure. > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2022, 16:35 Logan Jones <lo...@codescratch.com> wrote: > > > Hello: > > > > I would like to discuss what happens when iterators cause user-initiated > > compactions to fail, specifically in relation to the fate transactions. > Is > > this the right list for this discussion? > > > > Thanks, > > > > - Logan > > >
