[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TEZ-3549?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15713318#comment-15713318
 ] 

TezQA commented on TEZ-3549:
----------------------------

{color:red}-1 overall{color}.  Here are the results of testing the latest 
attachment
  http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12841350/TEZ-3549.003.patch
  against master revision 8079919.

    {color:green}+1 @author{color}.  The patch does not contain any @author 
tags.

    {color:green}+1 tests included{color}.  The patch appears to include 2 new 
or modified test files.

    {color:green}+1 javac{color}.  The applied patch does not increase the 
total number of javac compiler warnings.

    {color:green}+1 javadoc{color}.  There were no new javadoc warning messages.

    {color:green}+1 findbugs{color}.  The patch does not introduce any new 
Findbugs (version 3.0.1) warnings.

    {color:green}+1 release audit{color}.  The applied patch does not increase 
the total number of release audit warnings.

    {color:red}-1 core tests{color}.  The patch failed these unit tests in :
                   org.apache.tez.test.TestFaultTolerance

                                      The following test timeouts occurred in :
 org.apache.tez.test.TestSecureShuffle

Test results: 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-TEZ-Build/2138//testReport/
Console output: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-TEZ-Build/2138//console

This message is automatically generated.

> TaskAttemptImpl does not initialize TEZ_TASK_PROGRESS_STUCK_INTERVAL_MS 
> correctly
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TEZ-3549
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TEZ-3549
>             Project: Apache Tez
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 0.7.1
>            Reporter: Kuhu Shukla
>            Assignee: Kuhu Shukla
>         Attachments: TEZ-3549.001.patch, TEZ-3549.002.patch, 
> TEZ-3549.003.patch
>
>
> {code}
> hadoop jar /home/gs/tez/current/tez-examples-x.x.x.jar  orderedwordcount  
> -Dtez.task.progress.stuck.interval-ms=700000 /input  /output
> {code}
> With {{tez.task.am.heartbeat.interval-ms.max=3000}} and {{timeout-ms=300000}}
> fails as follows:
> {code}
>  INFO client.DAGClientImpl: DAG completed. FinalState=FAILED
>  INFO examples.OrderedWordCount: DAG diagnostics: [Vertex failed, 
> vertexName=Tokenizer, vertexId=vertex_123_456_1_00, diagnostics=[Task failed, 
> taskId=task_123_456_1_00_000007, diagnostics=[TaskAttempt 0 failed, 
> info=[Attempt failed because it appears to make no progress for 700000ms], 
> TaskAttempt 1 failed, info=[Attempt failed because it appears to make no 
> progress for 700000ms], TaskAttempt 2 failed, info=[Attempt failed because it 
> appears to make no progress for 700000ms], TaskAttempt 3 failed, 
> info=[Attempt failed because it appears to make no progress for 700000ms]], 
> Vertex did not succeed due to OWN_TASK_FAILURE, failedTasks:1 killedTasks:51, 
> Vertex vertex_123_456_1_00 [Tokenizer] killed/failed due 
> to:OWN_TASK_FAILURE], Vertex killed, vertexName=Sorter, 
> vertexId=vertex_123_456_1_02, diagnostics=[Vertex received Kill while in 
> RUNNING state., Vertex did not succeed due to OTHER_VERTEX_FAILURE, 
> failedTasks:0 killedTasks:1, Vertex vertex_123_456_1_02 [Sorter] 
> killed/failed due to:OTHER_VERTEX_FAILURE], Vertex killed, 
> vertexName=Summation, vertexId=vertex_123_456_1_01, diagnostics=[Vertex 
> received Kill while in RUNNING state., Vertex did not succeed due to 
> OTHER_VERTEX_FAILURE, failedTasks:0 killedTasks:1, Vertex vertex_123_456_1_01 
> [Summation] killed/failed due to:OTHER_VERTEX_FAILURE], DAG did not succeed 
> due to VERTEX_FAILURE. failedVertices:1 killedVertices:2]
> {code}
> This is because in TaskAttemptImpl, {{lastNotifyProgressTimestamp}} is 0 
> until progress gets notified and the following code always evaluates to true 
> if this config is set/non-zero.
> TaskUpdaterTransition:
> {code}
>       if (statusEvent.getProgressNotified()) {
>         ta.lastNotifyProgressTimestamp = ta.clock.getTime();
>       } else {
>         long currTime = ta.clock.getTime();
>         if (ta.hungIntervalMax > 0 &&
>             currTime - ta.lastNotifyProgressTimestamp > ta.hungIntervalMax) {
> {code}
> Ideally lastNotifyProgressTimestamp should be a timestamp from the onset so 
> that this comparison is valid.



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

Reply via email to