[jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-3974) Modify Randomwalk Bulk module to catch ACCUMULO-3967

["Josh Elser (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3974?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14711824#comment-14711824 ] 

Josh Elser commented on ACCUMULO-3974:
--------------------------------------

Thoughts on whether we should do this before we ship the next round of bug-fixes [~ctubbsii], [~ecn], [~kturner]? How critical does changing randomwalk to catch this strike you all?

> Modify Randomwalk Bulk module to catch ACCUMULO-3967
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-3974
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3974
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: test
>            Reporter: Josh Elser
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 1.6.4, 1.7.1, 1.8.0
>
>
> [~ecn] asked me after I committed a fix for ACCUMULO-3967 "why didn't randomwalk catch this bug?"
> I think we could potentially have caught this if in Setup we pre-split the table to be a large collection of sequentially increasing tablets. It's not a guarantee catch (since the bug itself was only shown in the case of import failures and the tablet distribution hasn't changed).
> Alternatively, we could copy the existing bulk module into a new module. In this module, we remove the splitting and merging, instead keeping a static split distribution. This would be almost guaranteed to eventually recreate the scenario. Adding in a chaotic balancer, even more likely to reproduce.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)