[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-14064?focusedWorklogId=749183&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:worklog-tabpanel#worklog-749183
]
ASF GitHub Bot logged work on BEAM-14064:
-----------------------------------------
Author: ASF GitHub Bot
Created on: 29/Mar/22 08:17
Start Date: 29/Mar/22 08:17
Worklog Time Spent: 10m
Work Description: je-ik commented on pull request #17112:
URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/17112#issuecomment-1081568512
Based on the discussion
https://lists.apache.org/thread/10db7l9bhnhmo484myps723sfxtjwwmv I think that
if we add the `getAllowedTimestampSkew()` call we can safely merge this. There
will be some fix needed in FlinkRunner (and a \@ValidatesRunner test). I
created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-14196 to track this and will
look into that.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
Issue Time Tracking
-------------------
Worklog Id: (was: 749183)
Time Spent: 5h 40m (was: 5.5h)
> ElasticSearchIO#Write buffering and outputting across windows
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BEAM-14064
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-14064
> Project: Beam
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: io-java-elasticsearch
> Affects Versions: 2.35.0, 2.36.0, 2.37.0
> Reporter: Luke Cwik
> Assignee: Evan Galpin
> Priority: P1
> Fix For: 2.39.0
>
> Time Spent: 5h 40m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Source: https://lists.apache.org/thread/mtwtno2o88lx3zl12jlz7o5w1lcgm2db
> Bug PR: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/15381
> ElasticsearchIO is collecting results from elements in window X and then
> trying to output them in window Y when flushing the batch. This exposed a bug
> where elements that were being buffered were being output as part of a
> different window than what the window that produced them was.
> This became visible because validation was added recently to ensure that when
> the pipeline is processing elements in window X that output with a timestamp
> is valid for window X. Note that this validation only occurs in
> *@ProcessElement* since output is associated with the current window with the
> input element that is being processed.
> It is ok to do this in *@FinishBundle* since there is no existing windowing
> context and when you output that element is assigned to an appropriate window.
> *Further Context*
> We’ve bisected it to being introduced in 2.35.0, and I’m reasonably certain
> it’s this PR https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/15381
> Our scenario is pretty trivial, we read off Pubsub and write to Elastic in a
> streaming job, the config for the source and sink is respectively
> {noformat}
> pipeline.apply(
> PubsubIO.readStrings().fromSubscription(subscription)
> ).apply(ParseJsons.of(OurObject::class.java))
> .setCoder(KryoCoder.of())
> {noformat}
> and
> {noformat}
> ElasticsearchIO.write()
> .withUseStatefulBatches(true)
> .withMaxParallelRequestsPerWindow(1)
> .withMaxBufferingDuration(Duration.standardSeconds(30))
> // 5 bytes **> KiB **> MiB, so 5 MiB
> .withMaxBatchSizeBytes(5L * 1024 * 1024)
> // # of docs
> .withMaxBatchSize(1000)
> .withConnectionConfiguration(
> ElasticsearchIO.ConnectionConfiguration.create(
> arrayOf(host),
> "fubar",
> "_doc"
> ).withConnectTimeout(5000)
> .withSocketTimeout(30000)
> )
> .withRetryConfiguration(
> ElasticsearchIO.RetryConfiguration.create(
> 10,
> // the duration is wall clock, against the connection and
> socket timeouts specified
> // above. I.e., 10 x 30s is gonna be more than 3 minutes,
> so if we're getting
> // 10 socket timeouts in a row, this would ignore the
> "10" part and terminate
> // after 6. The idea is that in a mixed failure mode,
> you'd get different timeouts
> // of different durations, and on average 10 x fails < 4m.
> // That said, 4m is arbitrary, so adjust as and when
> needed.
> Duration.standardMinutes(4)
> )
> )
> .withIdFn { f: JsonNode -> f["id"].asText() }
> .withIndexFn { f: JsonNode -> f["schema_name"].asText() }
> .withIsDeleteFn { f: JsonNode -> f["_action"].asText("noop") ==
> "delete" }
> {noformat}
> We recently tried upgrading 2.33 to 2.36 and immediately hit a bug in the
> consumer, due to alleged time skew, specifically
> {noformat}
> 2022-03-07 10:48:37.886 GMTError message from worker:
> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Cannot output with timestamp
> 2022-03-07T10:43:38.640Z. Output timestamps must be no earlier than the
> timestamp of the
> current input (2022-03-07T10:43:43.562Z) minus the allowed skew (0
> milliseconds) and no later than 294247-01-10T04:00:54.775Z. See the
> DoFn#getAllowedTimestampSkew() Javadoc
> for details on changing the allowed skew.
> org.apache.beam.runners.dataflow.worker.repackaged.org.apache.beam.runners.core.SimpleDoFnRunner$DoFnProcessContext.checkTimestamp(SimpleDoFnRunner.java:446)
>
> org.apache.beam.runners.dataflow.worker.repackaged.org.apache.beam.runners.core.SimpleDoFnRunner$DoFnProcessContext.outputWithTimestamp(SimpleDoFnRunner.java:422)
>
> org.apache.beam.sdk.io.elasticsearch.ElasticsearchIO$BulkIO$BulkIOBaseFn$ProcessContextAdapter.output(ElasticsearchIO.java:2364)
>
> org.apache.beam.sdk.io.elasticsearch.ElasticsearchIO$BulkIO$BulkIOBaseFn.flushAndOutputResults(ElasticsearchIO.java:2404)
> org.apache.beam.sdk.io.elasticsearch.ElasticsearchIO$BulkIO$BulkIOBaseFn.addAndMaybeFlush(ElasticsearchIO.java:2419)
> org.apache.beam.sdk.io.elasticsearch.ElasticsearchIO$BulkIO$BulkIOStatefulFn.processElement(ElasticsearchIO.java:2300)
> {noformat}
> I’ve bisected it and 2.34 works fine, 2.35 is the first version this breaks,
> and it seems like the code in the trace is largely added by the PR linked
> above. The error usually claims a skew of a few seconds, but obviously I
> can’t override getAllowedTimestampSkew() on the internal Elastic DoFn, and
> it’s marked deprecated anyway.
> I’m happy to raise a JIRA but I’m not 100% sure what the code was intending
> to fix, and additionally, I’d also be happy if someone else can reproduce
> this or knows of similar reports. I feel like what we’re doing is not that
> uncommon a scenario, so I would have thought someone else would have hit this
> by now.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
