[server][dvc] add table format info in the blob transfer #1428
Conversation
This file contains 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
lusong64
reviewed
Jan 10, 2025
|
|
||
| // Check the snapshot table format | ||
| BlobTransferTableFormat currentSnapshotTableFormat = blobSnapshotManager.getBlobTransferTableFormat(); | ||
| if (!blobTransferRequest.getRequestTableFormat().name().equals(currentSnapshotTableFormat.name())) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would using enum equal be more efficient than using String comparison? Enum is singleton so the comparison is safe.
if (blobTransferRequest.getRequestTableFormat() != currentSnapshotTableFormat) {
// yada yada...
}There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good call, updated in the next commit. Thank you.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
[server][dvc] add table format info in the blob transfer
There is an edge case where multiple file formats may coexist within a single cluster. For instance, DVC1 might use a plain-table format while DVC2 uses a block-based format. If DVC2 requests data from DVC1 during bootstrap, it could end up with a plain-table store in DVC2, leading to read issues.
This PR addresses the issue by:
Receiver side: Including the table format in the bootstrap request URI. An example URI:
[0]""/[1]"store"/[2]"version"/[3]"partition/[4]"table format".Sender side: Storing the current snapshot format in the snapshot manager. When a bootstrap request arrives, the snapshot manager compares the existing snapshot format with the requested table format. If they do not match, it returns a 404 error to reject the blob transfer request.
How was this PR tested?
Integration test "testBlobTransferThrowExceptionIfTableFormatNotMatch".
Does this PR introduce any user-facing changes?