Skip to content

Conversation

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun commented Jul 1, 2024

This is a backport of #46696

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Revert #36564 According to discuss #36564 (comment)

When spark commit task will commit to committedTaskPath
${outputpath}/_temporary//${appAttempId}/${taskId}
So in #36564 's case, since before #38980, each task's job id's date is not the same, when the task writes data success but fails to send back TaskSuccess RPC, the task rerun will commit to a different committedTaskPath then causing data duplicated.

After #38980, for the same task's different attempts, the TaskId is the same now, when re-run task commit, will commit to the same committedTaskPath, and hadoop CommitProtocol will handle such case then data won't be duplicated.

Note: The taskAttemptPath is not same since in the path contains the taskAttemptId.

Why are the changes needed?

No need anymore

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No

How was this patch tested?

Existed UT

Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

No

…inator should abort stage when committed file not consistent with task status

Revert apache#36564 According to discuss apache#36564 (comment)

When spark commit task will commit to committedTaskPath
`${outputpath}/_temporary//${appAttempId}/${taskId}`
So in apache#36564 's case, since before apache#38980, each task's job id's date is not the same,  when the task writes data success but fails to send back TaskSuccess RPC, the task rerun will commit to a different committedTaskPath then causing data duplicated.

After apache#38980, for the same task's different attempts, the TaskId is the same now, when re-run task commit, will commit to the same committedTaskPath, and hadoop CommitProtocol will handle such case then data won't be duplicated.

Note: The taskAttemptPath is not same since in the path contains the taskAttemptId.

No need anymore

No

Existed UT

No

Closes apache#46696 from AngersZhuuuu/SPARK-48292.

Authored-by: Angerszhuuuu <angers.zhu@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member Author

cc @AngersZhuuuu , @viirya , @cloud-fan , @huaxingao

Copy link
Contributor

@huaxingao huaxingao left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Thanks for the PR @dongjoon-hyun

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member Author

Thank you, @huaxingao and @viirya .
Merged to branch-3.5 for Apache Spark 3.5.2.

dongjoon-hyun pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 1, 2024
…Coordinator should abort stage when committed file not consistent with task status

This is a backport of #46696

### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Revert #36564 According to discuss #36564 (comment)

When spark commit task will commit to committedTaskPath
`${outputpath}/_temporary//${appAttempId}/${taskId}`
So in #36564 's case, since before #38980, each task's job id's date is not the same,  when the task writes data success but fails to send back TaskSuccess RPC, the task rerun will commit to a different committedTaskPath then causing data duplicated.

After #38980, for the same task's different attempts, the TaskId is the same now, when re-run task commit, will commit to the same committedTaskPath, and hadoop CommitProtocol will handle such case then data won't be duplicated.

Note: The taskAttemptPath is not same since in the path contains the taskAttemptId.

### Why are the changes needed?
No need anymore

### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
No

### How was this patch tested?
Existed UT

### Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No

Closes #47166 from dongjoon-hyun/SPARK-48292.

Authored-by: Angerszhuuuu <angers.zhu@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Dongjoon Hyun <dhyun@apple.com>
@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun deleted the SPARK-48292 branch July 1, 2024 20:23
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants