Skip to content
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

[SPARK-51638][CORE] Fix fetching the remote disk stored RDD blocks via the external shuffle service #50439

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

attilapiros
Copy link
Contributor

@attilapiros attilapiros commented Mar 28, 2025

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Fix remote fetching of disk stored RDD blocks via the external shuffle service when spark.shuffle.service.fetch.rdd.enabled is set.

Why are the changes needed?

After https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-43221 remote fetching was handled in BlockManagerMasterEndpoint#getLocationsAndStatus at one place where all the location was used along with the blockManagerInfo map but this map only includes information about the active executors which are not already killed (after for example downscaling in dynamic allocation or just killed because of a failures).

This PR extend the search to all the remote external shuffle services where the blockStatusByShuffleService map is used. That map contains block infos even for the killed executors.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No.

How was this patch tested?

An existing unit test was extended.

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

No.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the CORE label Mar 28, 2025
@attilapiros attilapiros changed the title [WIP][SPARK-51638][CORE] Fix fetching the remote disk stored RDD blocks via the external shuffle service [SPARK-51638][CORE] Fix fetching the remote disk stored RDD blocks via the external shuffle service Mar 28, 2025
@attilapiros
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @dongjoon-hyun, @Ngone51

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member

Ack, @attilapiros .

Copy link
Member

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since this is a regression, could you make an independent test case instead of adding to the existing SPARK-25888 test case, @attilapiros ?

Copy link
Member

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1 for the code change.

@attilapiros
Copy link
Contributor Author

Since this is a regression, could you make an independent test case instead of adding to the existing SPARK-25888 test case, @attilapiros ?

We can duplicate the test but actually these checks were really missing from the old test ("SPARK-25888: using external shuffle service fetching disk persisted blocks")
+
We will double/quadruple the runtime as any test we add runs in 2 times (ExternalShuffleServiceSuite&SslExternalShuffleServiceSuite instance):

[info] ExternalShuffleServiceSuite:
[info] - SPARK-25888: using external shuffle service fetching disk persisted blocks (15 seconds, 358 milliseconds)
[info] SslExternalShuffleServiceSuite:
[info] - SPARK-25888: using external shuffle service fetching disk persisted blocks (14 seconds, 270 milliseconds)

@attilapiros
Copy link
Contributor Author

attilapiros commented Mar 28, 2025

Runtimes in my machine (within a docker container) was super bad. Without docker it is much better:

[info] ExternalShuffleServiceSuite:
[info] - SPARK-25888: using external shuffle service fetching disk persisted blocks (6 seconds, 770 milliseconds)
[info] SslExternalShuffleServiceSuite:
[info] - SPARK-25888: using external shuffle service fetching disk persisted blocks (6 seconds, 987 milliseconds)

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member

If you really don't prefer to add a new test case with the test prefix, SPARK-51638, feel free to merge with the AS-IS status, @attilapiros . Although I'm reluctant to change SPARK-25888 test case, I trust your decision.

@attilapiros
Copy link
Contributor Author

Let's wait for @Ngone51 to review the PR and he can be the judge in this question as well.

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.

2 participants