Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
SPARK-41415/SPARK-42090 Backport to 3.3 - #39634
Closed
akpatnam25 wants to merge 2 commits into
Closed
Conversation
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Add the ability to retry SASL requests. Will add it as a metric too soon to track SASL retries. ### Why are the changes needed? We are seeing increased SASL timeouts internally, and this issue would mitigate the issue. We already have this feature enabled for our 2.3 jobs, and we have seen failures significantly decrease. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? Added unit tests, and tested on cluster to ensure the retries are being triggered correctly. Closesapache#38959 from akpatnam25/SPARK-41415. Authored-by: Aravind Patnam <apatnam@linkedin.com> Signed-off-by: Mridul Muralidharan <mridul<at>gmail.com>
### What changes were proposed in this pull request? This PR introduces sasl retry count in RetryingBlockTransferor. ### Why are the changes needed? Previously a boolean variable, saslTimeoutSeen, was used. However, the boolean variable wouldn't cover the following scenario: 1. SaslTimeoutException 2. IOException 3. SaslTimeoutException 4. IOException Even though IOException at apache#2 is retried (resulting in increment of retryCount), the retryCount would be cleared at step apache#4. Since the intention of saslTimeoutSeen is to undo the increment due to retrying SaslTimeoutException, we should keep a counter for SaslTimeoutException retries and subtract the value of this counter from retryCount. ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No ### How was this patch tested? New test is added, courtesy of Mridul. Closesapache#39611 from tedyu/sasl-cnt. Authored-by: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Mridul Muralidharan <mridul<at>gmail.com>
akpatnam25
commented
Jan 17, 2023
Author
@mridulm@otterc@tedyu@dongjoon-hyun backport into 3.3 |
dongjoon-hyun
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we backport one by one?
akpatnam25
commented
Jan 18, 2023
Author
Are we sure we want to do backport one by one? Asking because the 2nd backport fixes a corner case in which the 1st one does not. Ideally, I feel like they should be backported together. WDYT @dongjoon-hyun ? |
dongjoon-hyun
commented
Jan 18, 2023
Member
One-by-one is more clear. I'm sure what I want to keep in that way, @akpatnam25 . |
srowen
commented
Jan 18, 2023
Member
Also please write |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Add the ability to retry SASL requests. Will add it as a metric too soon to track SASL retries.
Why are the changes needed?
We are seeing increased SASL timeouts internally, and this issue would mitigate the issue. We already have this feature enabled for our 2.3 jobs, and we have seen failures significantly decrease.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
Added unit tests, and tested on cluster to ensure the retries are being triggered correctly.
Closes#38959 from akpatnam25/SPARK-41415.
Authored-by: Aravind Patnam apatnam@linkedin.com
Signed-off-by: Mridul Muralidharan <mridulgmail.com>
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR introduces sasl retry count in RetryingBlockTransferor.
Why are the changes needed?
Previously a boolean variable, saslTimeoutSeen, was used. However, the boolean variable wouldn't cover the following scenario:
Even though IOException at #2 is retried (resulting in increment of retryCount), the retryCount would be cleared at step #4.
Since the intention of saslTimeoutSeen is to undo the increment due to retrying SaslTimeoutException, we should keep a counter for SaslTimeoutException retries and subtract the value of this counter from retryCount.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
New test is added, courtesy of Mridul.
Closes#39611 from tedyu/sasl-cnt.
Authored-by: Ted Yu yuzhihong@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Mridul Muralidharan <mridulgmail.com>