Warning "Can not start proc_lib:init_p"

Evan Vigil-McClanahan emcclanahan at basho.com
Thu Apr 4 11:09:09 EDT 2013


One last note for 1.3.  Please make sure that the following line is in
your vm.args:
-env ERL_MAX_ETS_TABLES 819

This is a good idea for all systems but is especially important for
people with large rings.

Were there any other messages?  Riak constantly spawns new processes,
but they don't tend to build up unless the backend is misbehaving (or
a few other less likely conditions), and a backup of spawned processes
is the only thing I can think of that would make +P help with OOM
issues.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Ingo Rockel
<ingo.rockel at bluelionmobile.com> wrote:
> A grep for "too many processes" didn't reveal anything. The process got
> killed by the oom-killer.
>
> Am 04.04.2013 16:12, schrieb Evan Vigil-McClanahan:
>
>> That's odd.  It was getting killed by the OOM killer, or crashing
>> because it couldn't allocate more memory?  That's suggestive of
>> something else that's wrong, since the +P doesn't do any memory
>> limiting.  Are you getting 'too many processes' emulator errors on
>> that node?
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Ingo Rockel
>> <ingo.rockel at bluelionmobile.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> the crashing node seems to be caused by the raised +P param, after last
>>> crash I commented the param and now the node runs just fine.
>>>
>>> Am 04.04.2013 15:43, schrieb Ingo Rockel:
>>>
>>>> Hi Evan,
>>>>
>>>> we added monitoring of the object sizes and there was one object on one
>>>> of the three nodes mentioned which was > 2GB!!
>>>>
>>>> We just changed the application code to get the id of this object to be
>>>> able to delete it. But is does happen only about once a day.
>>>>
>>>> We right now have another node constantly crashing with oom about 12
>>>> minutes after start (always the same time frame), could this be related
>>>> to the big object issue? It is not one of the three nodes. The node logs
>>>> a lot of handoff receiving is going on.
>>>>
>>>> Again, thanks for the help!
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>>       Ingo
>>>>
>>>> Am 04.04.2013 15:30, schrieb Evan Vigil-McClanahan:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's always the same three nodes it could well be same very large
>>>>> object being updated each day.  Is there anything else that looks
>>>>> suspicious in your logs?  Another sign of large objects is large_heap
>>>>> (or long_gc) messages from riak_sysmon.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Ingo Rockel
>>>>> <ingo.rockel at bluelionmobile.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Evan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks for all the infos! I adjusted the leveldb-config as suggested,
>>>>>> except
>>>>>> the cache, which I reduced to 16MB, keeping this above the default
>>>>>> helped a
>>>>>> lot at least during load testing. And I added +P 130072 to the
>>>>>> vm.args. Will
>>>>>> be applied to the riak nodes the next hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have a monitoring using zabbbix, but haven't included the object
>>>>>> sizes so
>>>>>> far, will be added today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We double-checked the Linux-Performance-Doc to be sure everything is
>>>>>> applied
>>>>>> to the nodes, especially as the problems always are caused from the
>>>>>> same
>>>>>> three nodes. But everything looks fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ingo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 03.04.2013 18:42, schrieb Evan Vigil-McClanahan:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another engineer mentions that you posted your eleveldb section and I
>>>>>>> totally missed it:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The eleveldb section:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     %% eLevelDB Config
>>>>>>>     {eleveldb, [
>>>>>>>                 {data_root, "/var/lib/riak/leveldb"},
>>>>>>>                 {cache_size, 33554432},
>>>>>>>                 {write_buffer_size_min, 67108864}, %% 64 MB in bytes
>>>>>>>                 {write_buffer_size_max, 134217728}, %% 128 MB in
>>>>>>> bytes
>>>>>>>                 {max_open_files, 4000}
>>>>>>>                ]},
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is likely going to make you unhappy as time goes on; Since all
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> those settings are per-vnode, your max memory utilization is well
>>>>>>> beyond your physical memory.  I'd remove the tunings for the caches
>>>>>>> and buffers and drop max open files to 500, perhaps.  Make sure that
>>>>>>> you've followed everything in:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://docs.basho.com/riak/latest/cookbooks/Linux-Performance-Tuning/,
>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Evan Vigil-McClanahan
>>>>>>> <emcclanahan at basho.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, all of these things are signs of large objects, so if you
>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> track the object_size stats on the cluster, I think that we might
>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> something.  Even if you have no monitoring, a simple shell script
>>>>>>>> curling /stats/ on each node once a minute should do the job for a
>>>>>>>> day
>>>>>>>> or two.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Ingo Rockel
>>>>>>>> <ingo.rockel at bluelionmobile.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We just had it again (around this time of the day we have our
>>>>>>>>> highest
>>>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>>> activity).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will set +P to 131072 tomorrow, anything else I should check or
>>>>>>>>> change?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What about this memory-high-watermark which I get sporadically?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ingo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 03.04.2013 17:57, schrieb Evan Vigil-McClanahan:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As for +P it's been raised in R16 (which is on the current man
>>>>>>>>>> page)
>>>>>>>>>> on R15 it's only 32k.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The behavior that you're describing does sound like a very large
>>>>>>>>>> object getting put into the cluster (which may cause backups and
>>>>>>>>>> push
>>>>>>>>>> you up against the process limit, could have caused scheduler
>>>>>>>>>> collapse
>>>>>>>>>> on 1.2, etc.).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Ingo Rockel
>>>>>>>>>> <ingo.rockel at bluelionmobile.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Evan,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> sys_process_count is somewhere between 5k and 11k on the nodes
>>>>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>>>>> Concerning your suggested +P config, according to the
>>>>>>>>>>> erlang-docs, the
>>>>>>>>>>> default for this param already is 262144, so setting it to 655536
>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> fact lower it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We chose the ring size to be able to handle growth which was the
>>>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>>>>>> to switch from mysql to nosql/riak. We have 12 Nodes, so about 86
>>>>>>>>>>> vnodes
>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>> node.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, we don't monitor object sizes, the majority of objects is
>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>> small
>>>>>>>>>>> (below 200 bytes), but we have objects storing references to this
>>>>>>>>>>> small
>>>>>>>>>>> objects which might grow to a few megabytes in size, most of
>>>>>>>>>>> these are
>>>>>>>>>>> paged
>>>>>>>>>>> though and should not exceed one megabyte. Only one type is not
>>>>>>>>>>> paged
>>>>>>>>>>> (implementation reasons).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The outgoing/incoming traffic constantly is around 100 Mbit, if
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> peformance drops happen, we suddenly see spikes up to 1GBit. And
>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>> spikes constantly happen on three nodes as long as the
>>>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>>>>>> exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ingo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.04.2013 17:12, schrieb Evan Vigil-McClanahan:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ingo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> riak-admin status | grep sys_process_count
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> will tell you how many processes are running.  The default
>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>> limit on erlang is a little low, and we'd suggest raising in
>>>>>>>>>>>> (especially with your extra-large ring_size).   Erlang
>>>>>>>>>>>> processes are
>>>>>>>>>>>> cheap, so 65535 or even double that will be fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Busy dist ports are still worrying.  Are you monitoring object
>>>>>>>>>>>> sizes?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are there any spikes there associated with performance drops?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Ingo Rockel
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ingo.rockel at bluelionmobile.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Evan,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I set swt very_low and zdbbl to 64MB, setting this params
>>>>>>>>>>>>> helped
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reducing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the busy_dist_port and Monitor got {suppressed,... Messages a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the performance of the cluster suddenly drops we still see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The cluster was updated to 1.3 in the meantime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The eleveldb section:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>       %% eLevelDB Config
>>>>>>>>>>>>>       {eleveldb, [
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   {data_root, "/var/lib/riak/leveldb"},
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   {cache_size, 33554432},
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   {write_buffer_size_min, 67108864}, %% 64 MB
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in bytes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   {write_buffer_size_max, 134217728}, %% 128 MB
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bytes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   {max_open_files, 4000}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                  ]},
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ring size is 1024 and the machines have 48GB of memory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Concerning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> params from vm.args:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -env ERL_MAX_PORTS 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -env ERL_MAX_ETS_TABLES 8192
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +P isn't set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ingo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.04.2013 16:53, schrieb Evan Vigil-McClanahan:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For your prior mail, I thought that someone had answered.  Our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion was to add +swt very_low to your vm.args, as well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting the +zdbbl setting that Jon recommended in the list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed to.  If those help, moving to 1.3 should help more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other limits in vm.args that can cause problems are +P,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERL_MAX_PORTS,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and  ERL_MAX_ETS_TABLES.  Are any of these set?  If so, to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you also pate the eleveldb section of your app.config?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Ingo Rockel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ingo.rockel at bluelionmobile.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Evan,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure, I find a lot of these:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013-03-30 23:27:52.992 [error]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <0.8036.323>@riak_api_pb_server:handle_info:141 Unrecognized
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {22243034,{error,timeout}}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and some of these at the same time one of the kind below gets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (although the one has a different time stamp):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013-03-30 23:27:53.056 [error]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <0.9457.323>@riak_kv_console:status:178
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Status failed error:terminated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ingo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 03.04.2013 16:24, schrieb Evan Vigil-McClanahan:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Resending to the list:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ingo,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is an indication that the protocol buffers server can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spawn a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put fsm, which means that a put cannot be done for some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another.  Are there any other messages that appear around
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that might indicate why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Ingo Rockel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ingo.rockel at bluelionmobile.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have some performance issues with our riak cluster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a sudden drop in performance (already asked the list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no-one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had an idea though). Although not the same time but on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problematic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have a lot of these messages from time to time:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013-04-02 21:41:11.173 [warning] <0.25646.475> ** Can not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proc_lib:init_p
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ,[<0.14556.474>,[<0.9519.474>,riak_api_pb_sup,riak_api_sup,<0.1291.0>],riak_kv_p
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ut_fsm,start_link,[{raw,65032165,<0.9519.474>},{r_object,<<109>>,<<77,115,124,49
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ,53,55,57,56,57,56,50,124,49,51,54,52,57,51,49,54,49,49,53,49,50,52,53,54>>,[{r_
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content,{dict,0,16,16,8,80,48,{[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]},
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {{[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]}}},<<>>}],[],{dict,2,16,16,8,8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0,48,{[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]},{{[],[],[],[],[],[],[],[]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ,[],[],[[<<99,111,110,116,101,110,116,45,116,121,112,101>>,97,112,112,108,105,99
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ,97,116,105,111,110,47,106,115,111,110]],[],[],[],[],[[<<99,104,97,114,115,101,1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16>>,85,84,70,45,56]]}}},<<123,34,115,116,34,58,50,44,34,116,34,58,49,44,34,99,3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4,58,34,66,117,116,32,115,104,101,32,105,115,32,103,111,110,101,44,32,110,32,101
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ,118,101,110,32,116,104,111,117,103,104,32,105,109,32,110,111,116,32,105,110,32,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 117,114,32,99,105,116,121,32,105,32,108,111,118,101,32,117,32,110,100,32,105,32,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 109,101,97,110,32,105,116,32,58,39,40,34,44,34,114,34,58,49,52,51,52,54,52,51,57
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ,44,34,115,34,58,49,53,55,57,56,57,56,50,44,34,99,116,34,58,49,51,54,52,57,51,49
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ,54,49,49,53,49,50,44,34,97,110,34,58,102,97,108,115,101,44,34,115,107,34,58,49,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 51,54,52,57,51,49,54,49,49,53,49,50,52,53,54,44,34,115,117,34,58,48,125>>},[{tim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eout,60000}]]] on 'riak at 172.22.3.12' **
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can anyone explain to me what these messages mean and if I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something about it? Could these messages be in any way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance issues?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ingo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>




More information about the riak-users mailing list