Skip to content

Comments

[SPARK-27868][CORE][FOLLOWUP] Recover the default value to -1 again#27230

Closed
xCASx wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
xCASx:master
Closed

[SPARK-27868][CORE][FOLLOWUP] Recover the default value to -1 again#27230
xCASx wants to merge 1 commit intoapache:masterfrom
xCASx:master

Conversation

@xCASx
Copy link
Contributor

@xCASx xCASx commented Jan 16, 2020

The default value for backLog set back to -1, as any other value may break existing configuration by overriding Netty's default io.netty.util.NetUtil#SOMAXCONN. The documentation accordingly adjusted.
See discussion thread: #24732

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Partial rollback of #24732 (default for backLog set back to -1).

Why are the changes needed?

Previous change introduces backward incompatibility by overriding default of Netty's io.netty.util.NetUtil#SOMAXCONN

The default value for backLog set back to -1, as any other value may break existing configuration by overriding Netty's default io.netty.util.NetUtil#SOMAXCONN. The documentation accordingly adjusted.
See discussion thread: apache#24732
@xCASx xCASx requested review from dongjoon-hyun and vanzin January 16, 2020 06:34
@vanzin
Copy link
Contributor

vanzin commented Jan 16, 2020

ok to test

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jan 16, 2020

Test build #116865 has finished for PR 27230 at commit a3d399c.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

/** Requested maximum length of the queue of incoming connections. Default is 64. */
public int backLog() { return conf.getInt(SPARK_NETWORK_IO_BACKLOG_KEY, 64); }
/**
* Requested maximum length of the queue of incoming connections. If < 1,
Copy link
Member

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun Jan 17, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@xCASx . < 1 looks a little strange. Can we revise?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here is how it implemented:

if (conf.backLog() > 0) {
  bootstrap.option(ChannelOption.SO_BACKLOG, conf.backLog());
}

I've been thinking about wording. If use 0 or negative instead of < 1 it may seem that separately mentioned 0 is some special case different to negative values.

For me it's not a big deal, if you'd like, I can change it to 0 or negative.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What I meant was If < 1 looks strange grammatically to me.

up with a large number of connections arriving in a short period of time. This needs to
be configured wherever the shuffle service itself is running, which may be outside of the
application (see <code>spark.shuffle.service.enabled</code> option below).
application (see <code>spark.shuffle.service.enabled</code> option below). If set below 1,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just to be clear, do you mean 0 and negative values by If set below 1?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yes

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.

I added a minor comment about documentation.

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun changed the title [SPARK-27868][CORE] Partially rollback previous change #09ed64d. [SPARK-27868][CORE][FOLLOWUP] Partially rollback previous change #09ed64d. Jan 17, 2020
@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun changed the title [SPARK-27868][CORE][FOLLOWUP] Partially rollback previous change #09ed64d. [SPARK-27868][CORE][FOLLOWUP] Recover the default value to -1 again Jan 17, 2020
@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member

Hi, @vanzin . Could you review and finalize SPARK-27868 in the master branch please?

@vanzin
Copy link
Contributor

vanzin commented Jan 17, 2020

Seems fine to me. I'd have worded it a little differently, but not a big deal.

@vanzin
Copy link
Contributor

vanzin commented Jan 17, 2020

Merging to master.

@vanzin vanzin closed this in 830e635 Jan 17, 2020
@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Member

Thank you, @vanzin and @xCASx .

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