dongjoon-hyun commented on code in PR #43409:
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/43409#discussion_r1363336381
##########
core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/storage/BlockManagerDecommissioner.scala:
##########
@@ -145,7 +145,15 @@ private[storage] class BlockManagerDecommissioner(
// Confirm peer is not the fallback BM ID because
fallbackStorage would already
// have been used in the try-block above so there's no
point trying again
&& peer != FallbackStorage.FALLBACK_BLOCK_MANAGER_ID) {
- fallbackStorage.foreach(_.copy(shuffleBlockInfo, bm))
+ try {
+ fallbackStorage.foreach(_.copy(shuffleBlockInfo, bm))
+ } catch {
+ case e: FileNotFoundException =>
+ logWarning("Skipping block $shuffleBlockInfo, block
deleted.", e)
+ case NonFatal(e) =>
+ logError(s"Fallback storage for $shuffleBlockInfo
failed", e)
+ keepRunning = false
+ }
Review Comment:
Is this true?
> If we remove the added NonFatal block, this
[section](https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/2ab7aa87c25a0fd9eaa6047f02465130e5b22a18/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/storage/BlockManagerDecommissioner.scala#L171-L185)
won't get executed.
We have line 166, doesn't it?
https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/2ab7aa87c25a0fd9eaa6047f02465130e5b22a18/core/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/storage/BlockManagerDecommissioner.scala#L166-L168
Do you think you can provide a test case as the evidence for your claim,
@ukby1234 ?
--
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
