[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-24135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16462106#comment-16462106
]
Matt Cheah commented on SPARK-24135:
------------------------------------
Not necessarily - if the pods fail to start up, we should retry them
indefinitely as a replication controller or a deployment would. There's an
argument that can be made that we should be using those lower level primitives
to run executors instead of raw pods anyways, just that Spark's scheduler code
would need non-trivial changes to do so right now.
> [K8s] Executors that fail to start up because of init-container errors are
> not retried and limit the executor pool size
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SPARK-24135
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-24135
> Project: Spark
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Kubernetes
> Affects Versions: 2.3.0
> Reporter: Matt Cheah
> Priority: Major
>
> In KubernetesClusterSchedulerBackend, we detect if executors disconnect after
> having been started or if executors hit the {{ERROR}} or {{DELETED}} states.
> When executors fail in these ways, they are removed from the pending
> executors pool and the driver should retry requesting these executors.
> However, the driver does not handle a different class of error: when the pod
> enters the {{Init:Error}} state. This state comes up when the executor fails
> to launch because one of its init-containers fails. Spark itself doesn't
> attach any init-containers to the executors. However, custom web hooks can
> run on the cluster and attach init-containers to the executor pods.
> Additionally, pod presets can specify init containers to run on these pods.
> Therefore Spark should be handling the {{Init:Error}} cases regardless if
> Spark itself is aware of init-containers or not.
> This class of error is particularly bad because when we hit this state, the
> failed executor will never start, but it's still seen as pending by the
> executor allocator. The executor allocator won't request more rounds of
> executors because its current batch hasn't been resolved to either running or
> failed. Therefore we end up with being stuck with the number of executors
> that successfully started before the faulty one failed to start, potentially
> creating a fake resource bottleneck.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
