luoluoyuyu opened a new pull request, #18512:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iotdb/pull/18512
## Problem
Snapshot/backup pipes can be automatically dropped even when some DataNodes
failed to initialize their PipeConnector.
In the failing case, ConfigNode reported PIPE_PUSH_SINGLE_META failures with
TSStatus(code:1807) and Broken pipe on multiple DataNodes, then
PIPE_PUSH_ALL_META timed out. Some DataNodes therefore had no local PipeTask,
but the old DataNode completion check treated a missing task map as completed.
ConfigNode then saw every DataNode as completed and removed the pipe, making an
incomplete backup look successful.
### Root cause
DataNode treated pipeTaskMap == null as all regions completed.
DataNode only checked existing tasks, so a Region whose PipeTask failed to
start was silently ignored.
ConfigNode waited for all registered DataNodes instead of only the DataNodes
that actually own target Regions for the pipe.
ConfigNode subtracted completed nodes from a live keySet() view, which could
mutate the registered DataNode set.
### Changes
DataNode completion checkCompute the expected local DataRegion IDs from the
pipe's runtime metadata. A DataNode is only reported completed when every
expected local DataRegion has a completed PipeDataNodeTask. An empty expected
set is treated as completed because that DataNode has no local history transfer
to perform.
ConfigNode completion checkDerive the expected DataNode IDs from the pipe's
runtime metadata instead of using all registered DataNodes. DataNodes that do
not own any target Region are ignored during the auto-drop judgment. DataNodes
that should participate but have not completed still block auto-drop.
Avoid mutating the registered DataNode setCopy the registered DataNode IDs
before subtracting completed IDs, preventing removeAll from modifying the live
keySet().
Add unit testAdd coverage for the DataNode completion predicate, including a
missing expected Region, a missing task map, an uncompleted task, and an empty
expected set.
<!--
In each section, please describe design decisions made, including:
- Choice of algorithms
- Behavioral aspects. What configuration values are acceptable? How are
corner cases and error
conditions handled, such as when there are insufficient resources?
- Class organization and design (how the logic is split between classes,
inheritance, composition,
design patterns)
- Method organization and design (how the logic is split between methods,
parameters and return types)
- Naming (class, method, API, configuration, HTTP endpoint, names of
emitted metrics)
-->
<!-- It's good to describe an alternative design (or mention an alternative
name) for every design
(or naming) decision point and compare the alternatives with the designs
that you've implemented
(or the names you've chosen) to highlight the advantages of the chosen
designs and names. -->
<!-- If there was a discussion of the design of the feature implemented in
this PR elsewhere
(e. g. a "Proposal" issue, any other issue, or a thread in the development
mailing list),
link to that discussion from this PR description and explain what have
changed in your final design
compared to your original proposal or the consensus version in the end of
the discussion.
If something hasn't changed since the original discussion, you can omit a
detailed discussion of
those aspects of the design here, perhaps apart from brief mentioning for
the sake of readability
of this PR description. -->
<!-- Some of the aspects mentioned above may be omitted for simple and small
changes. -->
<hr>
This PR has:
- [ ] been self-reviewed.
- [ ] concurrent read
- [ ] concurrent write
- [ ] concurrent read and write
- [ ] added documentation for new or modified features or behaviors.
- [ ] added Javadocs for most classes and all non-trivial methods.
- [ ] added or updated version, __license__, or notice information
- [ ] added comments explaining the "why" and the intent of the code
wherever would not be obvious
for an unfamiliar reader.
- [ ] added unit tests or modified existing tests to cover new code paths,
ensuring the threshold
for code coverage.
- [ ] added integration tests.
- [ ] been tested in a test IoTDB cluster.
<!-- Check the items by putting "x" in the brackets for the done things. Not
all of these items
apply to every PR. Remove the items which are not done or not relevant to
the PR. None of the items
from the checklist above are strictly necessary, but it would be very
helpful if you at least
self-review the PR. -->
<hr>
##### Key changed/added classes (or packages if there are too many classes)
in this PR
--
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]
