Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[SPARK-42090][3.2] Introduce sasl retry count in RetryingBlockTransferor - #39710
Closed
akpatnam25 wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
[SPARK-42090][3.2] Introduce sasl retry count in RetryingBlockTransferor#39710akpatnam25 wants to merge 1 commit into
akpatnam25 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
### 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 23, 2023
Author
@mridulm@dongjoon-hyun backport to 3.2 for SPARK-42090 |
akpatnam25
commented
Jan 23, 2023
Author
fyi, this was a clean backport. |
mridulm
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2023
mridulm
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, will wait for CI to pass
AmplabJenkins
commented
Jan 24, 2023
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
mridulm pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 24, 2023
### 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 #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 <yuzhihonggmail.com> Signed-off-by: Mridul Muralidharan <mridul<at>gmail.com> Closes#39710 from akpatnam25/SPARK-42090-backport-3.2. Authored-by: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Mridul Muralidharan <mridul<at>gmail.com>
mridulm
commented
Jan 24, 2023
Contributor
Merged to 3.2. |
dongjoon-hyun
commented
Jan 25, 2023
Member
cc @kazuyukitanimura since this lands at branch-3.2 |
sunchao pushed a commit
to sunchao/spark
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 2, 2023
### 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 <yuzhihonggmail.com> Signed-off-by: Mridul Muralidharan <mridul<at>gmail.com> Closesapache#39710 from akpatnam25/SPARK-42090-backport-3.2. Authored-by: Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Mridul Muralidharan <mridul<at>gmail.com>
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
5 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? 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>