Now that the Hadoop native code builds on Solaris I've been chipping away at all the test failures. About 50% of the failures involve DomainSocket, either directly or indirectly. That seems to be mainly because the tests use DomainSocket to do single-node testing, whereas in production it seems that DomainSocket is less commonly used (https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r2.7.1/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-hdfs/ShortCircuitLocalReads.html).

The particular problem on Solaris is that socket read/write timeouts (the SO_SNDTIMEO and SO_RCVTIMEO socket options) are not supported for UNIX domain (PF_UNIX) sockets. Those options are however supported for PF_INET sockets. That's because the socket implementation on Solaris is split roughly into two parts, for inet sockets and for STREAMS sockets, and the STREAMS implementation lacks support for SO_SNDTIMEO and SO_RCVTIMEO. As an aside, performance of sockets that use loopback or the host's own IP is slightly better than that of UNIX domain sockets on Solaris.

I'm investigating getting timeouts supported for PF_UNIX sockets added to Solaris, but in the meantime I'm also looking how this might be worked around in Hadoop. One way would be to implement timeouts by wrapping all the read/write/send/recv etc calls in DomainSocket.c with either poll() or select().

The basic idea is to add two new fields to DomainSocket.c to hold the read/write timeouts. On platforms that support SO_SNDTIMEO and SO_RCVTIMEO these would be unused as setsockopt() would be used to set the socket timeouts. On platforms such as Solaris the JNI code would use the values to implement the timeouts appropriately.

To prevent the code in DomainSocket.c becoming a #ifdef hairball, the current socket IO function calls such as accept(), send(), read() etc would be replaced with a macros such as HD_ACCEPT. On platforms that provide timeouts these would just expand to the normal socket functions, on platforms that don't support timeouts it would expand to wrappers that implements timeouts for them.

The only caveats are that all code that does anything to a PF_UNIX socket would *always* have to do so via DomainSocket. As far as I can tell that's not an issue, but it would have to be borne in mind if any changes were made in this area.

Before I set about doing this, does the approach seem reasonable?

Thanks,

--
Alan Burlison
--

Reply via email to