Warning "Can not start proc_lib:init_p"

Evan Vigil-McClanahan emcclanahan at basho.com
Thu Apr 4 11:51:38 EDT 2013


Possible, but would need more information to make a guess.  I'd keep a
close eye on that node.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Ingo Rockel
<ingo.rockel at bluelionmobile.com> wrote:
> thanks, but it was a very obvious c&p error :) and we already have the
> ERL_MAX_ETS_TABLES set to 8192 as it is in the default vm.args.
>
> The only other messages were about a lot of handoff going on.
>
> Maybe the node was getting some data concerning the 2GB object?
>
> Ingo
>
> Am 04.04.2013 17:25, schrieb Evan Vigil-McClanahan:
>
>> Major error on my part here!
>>
>>> your vm.args:
>>> -env ERL_MAX_ETS_TABLES 819
>>
>>
>> This should be
>>
>> -env ERL_MAX_ETS_TABLES 8192
>>
>> Sorry for the sloppy cut and paste.  Please do not do the former
>> thing, or it will be very bad.
>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>
>
> --
> Software Architect
>
> Blue Lion mobile GmbH
> Tel. +49 (0) 221 788 797 14
> Fax. +49 (0) 221 788 797 19
> Mob. +49 (0) 176 24 87 30 89
>
> ingo.rockel at bluelionmobile.com
>>>> qeep: Hefferwolf
>
> www.bluelionmobile.com
> www.qeep.net




More information about the riak-users mailing list