Bouncing the consumers should solve this issue in most cases.
Thanks,
Mayuresh
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Jiangjie Qin <j...@linkedin.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Hi Tao,
>
> We see this error from time to time but did not think of this as a big
> issue. Any reason it bothers you much?
> I¹m not sure if throwing exception to user on this exception is a good
> handling or not. What are user supposed to do in that case other than
> retry?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>
> On 7/12/15, 7:16 PM, "tao xiao" <xiaotao...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >We saw the error again in our cluster. Anyone has the same issue before?
> >
> >On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 at 13:26 tao xiao <xiaotao...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Bump the thread. Any help would be appreciated.
> >>
> >> On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 at 20:09 tao xiao <xiaotao...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Additional info
> >>> Kafka version: 0.8.2.1
> >>> zookeeper: 3.4.6
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 at 20:07 tao xiao <xiaotao...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi team,
> >>>>
> >>>> I have 10 high level consumers connecting to Kafka and one of them
> >>>>kept
> >>>> complaining "conflicted ephemeral node" for about 8 hours. The log was
> >>>> filled with below exception
> >>>>
> >>>> [2015-07-07 14:03:51,615] INFO conflict in
> >>>> /consumers/group/ids/test-1435856975563-9a9fdc6c data:
> >>>>
> >>>>{"version":1,"subscription":{"test.*":1},"pattern":"white_list","timest
> >>>>amp":"1436275631510"}
> >>>> stored data:
> >>>>
> >>>>{"version":1,"subscription":{"test.*":1},"pattern":"white_list","timest
> >>>>amp":"1436275558570"}
> >>>> (kafka.utils.ZkUtils$)
> >>>> [2015-07-07 14:03:51,616] INFO I wrote this conflicted ephemeral node
> >>>>
> >>>>[{"version":1,"subscription":{"test.*":1},"pattern":"white_list","times
> >>>>tamp":"1436275631510"}]
> >>>> at /consumers/group/ids/test-1435856975563-9a9fdc6c a while back in a
> >>>> different session, hence I will backoff for this node to be deleted by
> >>>> Zookeeper and retry (kafka.utils.ZkUtils$)
> >>>>
> >>>> In the meantime zookeeper reported below exception for the same time
> >>>>span
> >>>>
> >>>> 2015-07-07 22:45:09,687 [myid:3] - INFO [ProcessThread(sid:3
> >>>> cport:-1)::PrepRequestProcessor@645] - Got user-level KeeperException
> >>>> when processing sessionid:0x44e657ff19c0019 type:create cxid:0x7a26
> >>>> zxid:0x3015f6e77 txntype:-1 reqpath:n/a Error
> >>>> Path:/consumers/group/ids/test-1435856975563-9a9fdc6c
> >>>>Error:KeeperErrorCode
> >>>> = NodeExists for /consumers/group/ids/test-1435856975563-9a9fdc6c
> >>>>
> >>>> At the end zookeeper timed out the session and consumers triggered
> >>>> rebalance.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know that conflicted ephemeral node warning is to handle a zookeeper
> >>>> bug that session expiration and ephemeral node deletion are not done
> >>>> atomically but as indicated from zookeeper log the zookeeper never
> >>>>got a
> >>>> chance to delete the ephemeral node which made me think that the
> >>>>session
> >>>> was not expired at that time. And for some reason zookeeper fired
> >>>>session
> >>>> expire event which subsequently invoked ZKSessionExpireListener. I
> >>>>was
> >>>> just wondering if anyone have ever encountered similar issue before
> >>>>and
> >>>> what I can do at zookeeper side to prevent this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Another problem is that createEphemeralPathExpectConflictHandleZKBug
> >>>> call is wrapped in a while(true) loop which runs forever until the
> >>>> ephemeral node is created. Would it be better that we can employ an
> >>>> exponential retry policy with a max number of retries so that it has a
> >>>> chance to re-throw the exception back to caller and let caller handle
> >>>>it in
> >>>> situation like above?
> >>>>
> >>>>
>
>
--
-Regards,
Mayuresh R. Gharat
(862) 250-7125
