-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28.7k
[SPARK-4006] In long running contexts, we encountered the situation of d... #2915
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
…f double registe... ...r without a remove in between. The cause for that is unknown, and assumed a temp network issue. However, since the second register is with a BlockManagerId on a different port, blockManagerInfo.contains() returns false, while blockManagerIdByExecutor returns Some. This inconsistency is caught in a conditional statement that does System.exit(1), which is a huge robustness issue for us. The fix - simply remove the old id from both maps during register when this happens. We are mimicking the behavior of expireDeadHosts(), by doing local cleanup of the maps before trying to add new ones. Also - added some logging for register and unregister. This is just like apache/spark#2854 except it's on master Author: Tal Sliwowicz <[email protected]> Closes #2886 from tsliwowicz/master-block-mgr-removal and squashes the following commits: 094d508 [Tal Sliwowicz] some more white space change undone 41a2217 [Tal Sliwowicz] some more whitspaces change undone 7bcfc3d [Tal Sliwowicz] whitspaces fix df9d98f [Tal Sliwowicz] Code review comments fixed f48bce9 [Tal Sliwowicz] In long running contexts, we encountered the situation of double register without a remove in between. The cause for that is unknown, and assumed a temp network issue. (cherry picked from commit 6b48522) Conflicts: core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/storage/BlockManagerMasterActor.scala
QA tests have started for PR 2915 at commit
|
Tests timed out after a configured wait of |
Test FAILed. |
retest this please |
QA tests have started for PR 2915 at commit
|
QA tests have finished for PR 2915 at commit
|
Test PASSed. |
I'm merging this thanks. |
…f d... ...ouble registe... ...r without a remove in between. The cause for that is unknown, and assumed a temp network issue. However, since the second register is with a BlockManagerId on a different port, blockManagerInfo.contains() returns false, while blockManagerIdByExecutor returns Some. This inconsistency is caught in a conditional statement that does System.exit(1), which is a huge robustness issue for us. The fix - simply remove the old id from both maps during register when this happens. We are mimicking the behavior of expireDeadHosts(), by doing local cleanup of the maps before trying to add new ones. Also - added some logging for register and unregister. This is just like #2886 except it's on branch-1.1 Author: Tal Sliwowicz <[email protected]> Closes #2915 from tsliwowicz/branch-1.1-block-mgr-removal and squashes the following commits: d122236 [Tal Sliwowicz] [SPARK-4006] In long running contexts, we encountered the situation of double registe...
Hi @tsliwowicz, It looks like this pull request was merged into |
...ouble registe...
...r without a remove in between. The cause for that is unknown, and assumed a temp network issue.
However, since the second register is with a BlockManagerId on a different port, blockManagerInfo.contains() returns false, while blockManagerIdByExecutor returns Some. This inconsistency is caught in a conditional statement that does System.exit(1), which is a huge robustness issue for us.
The fix - simply remove the old id from both maps during register when this happens. We are mimicking the behavior of expireDeadHosts(), by doing local cleanup of the maps before trying to add new ones.
Also - added some logging for register and unregister.
This is just like #2886 except it's on branch-1.1