Skip to content

Conversation

@madanadit
Copy link

@madanadit madanadit commented Apr 5, 2018

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR introduces a new config spark.kubernetes.executor.volumes taking a values of the form hostPath:containerPath[:ro|rw][,...]; where hostPath is the path for the executor pod volume, containerPath is the mount path and ro is read-only mode.

The use case is to enable short-circuit writes to distributed storage on k8s. The Alluxio File System uses domain sockets to enable short-circuit writes from the client to worker memory when co-located on the same host machine. A directory, lets say /tmp/domain on the host, is mounted on the Alluxio worker container as well as the Alluxio client ( = Spark executor) container. The worker creates a domain socket /tmp/domain/d and if the client container mounts the same directory, it can write directly to the Alluxio worker w/o passing through network stack. The end result is faster data access when data is local.

How was this patch tested?

Manual testing on a k8s v1.8 cluster. Unit tests added to ExecutorPodFactorySuite.

@madanadit
Copy link
Author

@foxish Can you take a look?. Thanks!

@foxish
Copy link
Contributor

foxish commented Apr 6, 2018

ok to test

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 6, 2018

Test build #88960 has finished for PR 20989 at commit 17cfdf3.

  • This patch fails Scala style tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 6, 2018

Kubernetes integration test starting
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/testing-k8s-prb-spark-integration/1981/

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 6, 2018

Kubernetes integration test status failure
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/testing-k8s-prb-spark-integration/1981/

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 6, 2018

Kubernetes integration test starting
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/testing-k8s-prb-spark-integration/2014/

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 6, 2018

Test build #89000 has finished for PR 20989 at commit cb789ff.

  • This patch fails Spark unit tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 6, 2018

Kubernetes integration test status failure
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/testing-k8s-prb-spark-integration/2014/

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 7, 2018

Test build #89003 has finished for PR 20989 at commit d9f46d3.

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

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 7, 2018

Kubernetes integration test starting
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/testing-k8s-prb-spark-integration/2016/

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 7, 2018

Kubernetes integration test status failure
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/testing-k8s-prb-spark-integration/2016/

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 7, 2018

Kubernetes integration test starting
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/testing-k8s-prb-spark-integration/2017/

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 7, 2018

Test build #89004 has finished for PR 20989 at commit 3d8858a.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds the following public classes (experimental):
  • public class SchemaColumnConvertNotSupportedException extends RuntimeException
  • class QueryExecutionException(message: String, cause: Throwable = null)

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Apr 7, 2018

Kubernetes integration test status failure
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/testing-k8s-prb-spark-integration/2017/

@madanadit
Copy link
Author

@foxish The failure seems to be because of SparkRemoteFileTest missing from branch-2.3 (only present in master branch). Which branch do you recommend targeting this PR towards?

@felixcheung
Copy link
Member

hi there - you should always open PR on master. we could backport to "older releases" as needed, or ask you to open a separate PR that is based on branch-2.3 (like this one you have now)

@madanadit
Copy link
Author

Thanks @felixcheung!. I've re targeted to master in this PR. Closing this one.

@madanadit madanadit closed this Apr 10, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants