-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29k
[SPARK-24266][K8S][2.4] Restart the watcher when we receive a version changed from k8s #29496
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
Closed
jkleckner
wants to merge
1
commit into
apache:branch-2.4
from
jkleckner:backport-SPARK-24266-to-branch-2.4
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jkleckner
This line is different in the
masterbranch. It checks whether the client was set to wait for the completion of the driver, not simply checkinghasCompleted(), which should normally return false - causingspark-submitto terminate immediately.For
2.4.7port you may want to add additional parameter to theLoggingPodStatusWatcherImpl, specificallywaitForCompletion: Boolean, that can be checked in this if statement. In current master they are usingKubernetesDriverConfinstead of passing parameters separately:spark/resource-managers/kubernetes/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/deploy/k8s/submit/LoggingPodStatusWatcher.scala
Line 40 in 5e6173e
However in
2.4.6,KubernetesDriverConfis not yet introduced, and instead theappIdandmaybeLoggingIntervalare passed individually. Simple solution is to addwaitForCompletionas a parameter, and use it in the above if statement.This has worked well for me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@shockdm Yes, you are right. And it is great that you have it working!
We're happy to make the change but would you mind sharing the code so as to be consistent with what you already have?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@shockdm ping
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jkleckner sorry, spent some time doing test runs to make sure it fixed our use case. I'll share the final code shortly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@shockdm ping
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jkleckner Thank you for the reminder, and sorry for the delay! Check out shockdm#1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Your patches look like an improvement, thank you @shockdm.
There are enough differences that perhaps you might be willing to submit them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
With the original comment by @dongjoon-hyun:
What would be the correct approach to submit this backport atm?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@dongjoon-hyun Is the merging or the submitting of a PR to branch-3.0 a pre-requisite to submitting this PR or an improved PR?
Note that the implementations inherently diverge due to the divergence of the base branches.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@shockdm The 3.0 patch #29533 has now been merged. Even though we never got an answer whether that was a prerequisite, that blockage is now gone.
Would you be willing to rebase and clean up your patch for submission?