-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 440
TEZ-4488: TaskSchedulerManager might not be initialized when the first DAG comes #280
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
Conversation
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
c6f83ec to
0a46582
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
| taskSchedulerManager); | ||
| addIfServiceDependency(taskSchedulerManager, clientRpcServer); | ||
|
|
||
| appMasterReadinessService = createAppMasterReadinessService(); |
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.
Issue is happening as a corner case, as the taskscheduler could be taking longer to init. In this case, possibly "LlapTaskSchedulerService" is taking time to init due to ZK dependency.
Instead of adding one more dependency, why not throw RuntimeException in TaskSchedulerManager::getTaskSchedulerClassName (i.e until all taskSchedulers are initied w.r.t appContext) ?
|
@rbalamohan: I'm afraid we have no other choice than blocking the first DAG here, as throwing an exception from TaskSchedulerManager::getTaskSchedulerClassName would lead to a similar exception that I'm trying to avoid here |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
Lgtm. +1 on the recent patch with timeout. |
thanks @rbalamohan , waiting for green tests before merging |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
…t DAG comes (apache#280) (Laszlo Bodor reviewed by Rajesh Balamohan) (cherry picked from commit 249e017)
…t DAG comes (apache#280) (Laszlo Bodor reviewed by Rajesh Balamohan) (cherry picked from commit 249e017)
…t DAG comes (apache#280) (Laszlo Bodor reviewed by Rajesh Balamohan) (cherry picked from commit 249e017) (cherry picked from commit 41343dc)
…t DAG comes (apache#280) (Laszlo Bodor reviewed by Rajesh Balamohan) (cherry picked from commit 249e017) (cherry picked from commit 41343dc)
…t DAG comes (apache#280) (Laszlo Bodor reviewed by Rajesh Balamohan) (cherry picked from commit 249e017) (cherry picked from commit 41343dc)
…t DAG comes (apache#280) (Laszlo Bodor reviewed by Rajesh Balamohan) (cherry picked from commit 249e017) (cherry picked from commit 41343dc)
…t DAG comes (apache#280) (Laszlo Bodor reviewed by Rajesh Balamohan) (cherry picked from commit 249e017) (cherry picked from commit 41343dc)
…t DAG comes (apache#280) (Laszlo Bodor reviewed by Rajesh Balamohan) (cherry picked from commit 249e017) (cherry picked from commit 41343dc) (cherry picked from commit 6d81766)
…n the first DAG comes (apache#280) (Laszlo Bodor reviewed by Rajesh Balamohan) (#23) (cherry picked from commit 249e017) (cherry picked from commit 41343dc) (cherry picked from commit 6d81766) Co-authored-by: Bodor Laszlo <[email protected]>
…n the first DAG comes (apache#280) (Laszlo Bodor reviewed by Rajesh Balamohan) (#23) (cherry picked from commit 249e017) (cherry picked from commit 41343dc) (cherry picked from commit 6d81766) Co-authored-by: Bodor Laszlo <[email protected]>
No description provided.