[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-19276?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15830387#comment-15830387
 ] 

Mark Hamstra commented on SPARK-19276:
--------------------------------------

This all makes sense, and the PR is a good effort to fix this kind of 
"accidental" swallowing of FetchFailedException.  I guess my only real question 
is if we should allow for the possibility of a FetchFailedException not only 
being caught, but also the failure being remedied by some means other than the 
usual handling in the driver. I'm not sure exactly how or why that kind of "fix 
the fetch failure before Spark tries to handle it" would be done; and it would 
seem that something like that would be prone to subtle errors, so maybe we 
should just set it in stone that nobody but the driver should try to fix a 
fetch failure -- which would make the approach of your "guarantee that the 
FetchFailedException is seen by the driver" PR completely correct.

> FetchFailures can be hidden by user (or sql) exception handling
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SPARK-19276
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-19276
>             Project: Spark
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Scheduler, Spark Core, SQL
>    Affects Versions: 2.1.0
>            Reporter: Imran Rashid
>            Priority: Critical
>
> The scheduler handles node failures by looking for a special 
> {{FetchFailedException}} thrown by the shuffle block fetcher.  This is 
> handled in {{Executor}} and then passed as a special msg back to the driver: 
> https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/278fa1eb305220a85c816c948932d6af8fa619aa/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/executor/Executor.scala#L403
> However, user code exists in between the shuffle block fetcher and that catch 
> block -- it could intercept the exception, wrap it with something else, and 
> throw a different exception.  If that happens, spark treats it as an ordinary 
> task failure, and retries the task, rather than regenerating the missing 
> shuffle data.  The task eventually is retried 4 times, its doomed to fail 
> each time, and the job is failed.
> You might think that no user code should do that -- but even sparksql does it:
> https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/278fa1eb305220a85c816c948932d6af8fa619aa/sql/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/sql/execution/datasources/FileFormatWriter.scala#L214
> Here's an example stack trace.  This is from Spark 1.6, so the sql code is 
> not the same, but the problem is still there:
> {noformat}
> 17/01/13 19:18:02 WARN scheduler.TaskSetManager: Lost task 0.0 in stage 
> 1983.0 (TID 304851, xxx): org.apache.spark.SparkException: Task failed while 
> writing rows.
>         at 
> org.apache.spark.sql.execution.datasources.DynamicPartitionWriterContainer.writeRows(WriterContainer.scala:414)
>         at 
> org.apache.spark.sql.execution.datasources.InsertIntoHadoopFsRelation$$anonfun$run$1$$anonfun$apply$mcV$sp$3.apply(InsertIntoHadoopFsRelation.scala:150)
>         at 
> org.apache.spark.sql.execution.datasources.InsertIntoHadoopFsRelation$$anonfun$run$1$$anonfun$apply$mcV$sp$3.apply(InsertIntoHadoopFsRelation.scala:150)
>         at org.apache.spark.scheduler.ResultTask.runTask(ResultTask.scala:66)
>         at org.apache.spark.scheduler.Task.run(Task.scala:89)
>         at 
> org.apache.spark.executor.Executor$TaskRunner.run(Executor.scala:214)
>         at 
> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142)
>         at 
> java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:617)
>         at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
> Caused by: org.apache.spark.shuffle.FetchFailedException: Failed to connect 
> to xxx/yyy:zzz
>         at 
> org.apache.spark.storage.ShuffleBlockFetcherIterator.throwFetchFailedException(ShuffleBlockFetcherIterator.scala:323)
> ...
> 17/01/13 19:19:29 ERROR scheduler.TaskSetManager: Task 0 in stage 1983.0 
> failed 4 times; aborting job
> {noformat}
> I think the right fix here is to also set a fetch failure status in the 
> {{TaskContextImpl}}, so the executor can check that instead of just one 
> exception.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to