-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
Retry shared e2e cluster start on transient node-placement failures #2182
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The cap here is doing two different jobs, and it's only right for one of them:
When
remaining < jitterthere isn't room for another attempt, so the loop sleeps out the clock and then discovers that.The timeline from your own
stops re-starting once the deadline is exhausted by backofftest (timeout = 5s, jitter in [10s, 30s]):The sleep is decided after the value that makes it pointless is already in hand.
The cap can go away entirely, because the guard subsumes it: if there's room to sleep, sleeping the full jitter is safe; if there isn't, the answer is
break. That also drops the now-deadbackoffMs > 0check.This is free with respect to the existing test, which asserts
verifyStarted(1)and a/Timeout while placing nodes/message. Both hold either way:verifyStarted(1)So the test never pinned the sleep, only the clock did.
One knock-on worth noting: after this change the
remaining() <= 0guard at the top of the loop is no longer reachable via the backoff path. It stays useful only for a caller-supplied already-expired deadline, which your 0 ms test covers.Worst case in production is one jitter window (~30s) per failing shard, so this is a nit rather than a blocker.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks Anton — agreed, this is a clean simplification (break instead of sleeping out the deadline, and the
backoffMs > 0check does become dead code). Since you flagged it non-blocking and it's test-neutral, I'm intentionally leaving it as-is here to avoid re-spinning the ~45-min integration run and churning the approval — noting it as a small follow-up. Appreciate the careful read on the shared-deadline invariant.