HADOOP-18345: Enhance client protocol to propagate last seen state IDs for multiple nameservices. #4584
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
@ZanderXu do you mind taking a look. |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
goiri
reviewed
Jul 18, 2022
| @@ -157,6 +158,7 @@ message RpcResponseHeaderProto { | |||
| optional bytes clientId = 7; // Globally unique client ID | |||
| optional sint32 retryCount = 8 [default = -1]; | |||
| optional int64 stateId = 9; // The last written Global State ID | |||
| map<string, int64> nameserviceStateIds = 10; // Last seen state IDs for multiple nameservices. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@goiri The classes that will interact with these header fields will be in the hadoop-hdfs-client module, so it is hard to then keep changes and tests contained within hadoop-common. I don't have a workaround at the moment but I'll keep trying to think of alternative ways to test. Let me know if you have any ideas with regards to this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doesn't this field need to be optional for backwards compatibility?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it should be optional. Thanks for spotting the error. I'll fix that.
I'm also going to make this a bytearray since the client doesn't need to parse it. This will give us the flexibility to evolve the contents in the routers.
|
@simbadzina About "RBF supports Observer Read", it's a hug and helpful project. We'd better discuss the overall implementation plan first, and then start development and code review after reaching an agreement, how? |
|
@ZanderXu please take a look at: |
Copy, sir. I will follow up this feature and push it forward with @simbadzina together. |
|
Yes, it should be optional. Thanks for spotting the error. I'll fix that.
I'm considering making the field a byte array in the client protocol. Only
routers need to parse it.
…On Mon, Jul 25, 2022, 16:51 Erik Krogen ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common/src/main/proto/RpcHeader.proto
<#4584 (comment)>:
> @@ -157,6 +158,7 @@ message RpcResponseHeaderProto {
optional bytes clientId = 7; // Globally unique client ID
optional sint32 retryCount = 8 [default = -1];
optional int64 stateId = 9; // The last written Global State ID
+ map<string, int64> nameserviceStateIds = 10; // Last seen state IDs for multiple nameservices.
Doesn't this field need to be optional for backwards compatibility?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#4584 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC6NI6DC23A4WNI4AARIIW3VV4SBNANCNFSM53457PHA>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
92a3e9a to
ebf23a3
Compare
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
ebf23a3 to
ecca8e6
Compare
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
981e17c to
efd4e35
Compare
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
omalley
requested changes
Aug 3, 2022
hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/ipc/RpcConstants.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common/src/main/proto/RpcHeader.proto
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
hadoop-common-project/hadoop-common/src/main/proto/RpcHeader.proto
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
2a76bb5 to
ccdb70c
Compare
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
@omalley I'm guessing the close was accidental? |
omalley
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 23, 2022
…for multiple nameservices. Fixes #4584 Signed-off-by: Owen O'Malley <oomalley@linkedin.com>
|
@goiri No, I committed the change to trunk and branch-3.3. Was there still an open issue on this PR? |
|
No worries, you merged manually instead of merging the existing PR. |
HarshitGupta11
pushed a commit
to HarshitGupta11/hadoop
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 28, 2022
…for multiple nameservices. Fixes apache#4584 Signed-off-by: Owen O'Malley <oomalley@linkedin.com>
LiuGuH
pushed a commit
to LiuGuH/hadoop
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 29, 2024
…for multiple nameservices. Fixes apache#4584 Signed-off-by: Owen O'Malley <oomalley@linkedin.com>
NyteKnight
pushed a commit
to NyteKnight/hadoop
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 25, 2024
…for multiple nameservices. Fixes apache#4584 Signed-off-by: Owen O'Malley <oomalley@linkedin.com> (cherrypicked from e28dc52) RB=3579342 BUG=LIHADOOP-66568 G=storage-reviewers R=yzhang12,oomalley,hchaverr A=hchaverr
LiuGuH
pushed a commit
to LiuGuH/hadoop
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 4, 2024
…for multiple nameservices. Fixes apache#4584 Signed-off-by: Owen O'Malley <oomalley@linkedin.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of PR
Enhance client protocol to propagate last seen state IDs for multiple nameservices.
How was this patch tested?
This is a prerequisite for HDFS-13522. There are tests in the that JIRA.
For code changes: