mesos-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Schwartzmeyer <>
Subject Re: Follow up to discussion regarding use : in paths on Windows (MESOS-9109)
Date Tue, 04 Sep 2018 21:12:46 GMT
I think your approach would be fairly sound. That is, to change the 
logic to read the IDs from the info file instead of the paths. But I 
also think we can punt this for now (as I do not think a task ID like 
'Hello%3AWorld' is plausibly in use right now), and implement a fix for 
colons now that would remain compatible.

If we add encode/decode logic for colons on Windows, we do not introduce 
backward compatibility issues on other platforms (as we'd constrain the 
change to Windows), and in the future, we can safely replace the decode 
logic with your approach. That is to say, we implement the encoding as 
sparingly as possible, but implement it now, because it's kind of 
required, and we implement the decoding only as a stop-gap until we 
replace this logic with reading from the info file instead. If we later 
find another character in use that also needs to be encoded, we can then 
abstract the single encoding into a per-platform encoding set.

Does this seem reasonable?



P.S. Sorry this took a while to get back to, I was out last week.

On 08/23/2018 3:34 pm, Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote:
> I'm a bit concerned about the recovery logic and backward 
> compatibility:
> The changes we're making shouldn't affect existing users,
> and we should try hard to avoid any future backward compatibility 
> problem.
> Say if there is already some custom framework using task ID 
> 'Hello%3AWorld',
> then if we blindly decode the task path during recovery, we will get 
> the
> wrong ID 'Hello:World'.
> On the other hand, if we don't decode the task path during recovery,
> then later on during checkpointing for the same task,
> we shouldn't blindly encode the task ID, because it might create a
> different path,
> and we'll need to introduce some migration code to avoid such 
> duplication.
> Fortunately, we do checkpoint the executor IDs and task IDs in the info
> files under the meta dir.
> So I'm considering the following design to minimize the backward
> compatibility issue we might have:
> During recovery, we don't decode the recovered task path,
> but get the executor/task ID from the info file instead of relying on
> parsing the executor/task path.
> When checkpointing, we only encode executor/task IDs if they contain
> reserved characters.
> The set of reserved characters could be defined as a platform-dependent
> variable,
> similar to what we have done for `PATH_SEPARATOR`.
> The above design would look a bit more complicated then just blindly
> applying percent encoding
> to when constructing checkpoint paths, but it doesn't require extra
> checkpoint migration logic,
> and would keep the exact same behavior we have now for "normal"
> executor/task IDs.
> What did you guys think? Please feel free to raise any concern :)
> And we don't need to implement the whole thing for now.
> For example, we could start with just dealing with colons,
> and extend the implementation later on,
> as long as the partial solution we're going to have right now doesn't
> create future tech debts!
> Best,
> Chun-Hung
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 1:42 PM Greg Mann <> wrote:
>> Thanks Andy! Responses inlined below.
>>> No: As the only character we've run into a problem with is `:`
>>> (MESOS-9109), it might not be worth it to generalize this to solve a 
>>> bunch
>>> of problems that we haven't encountered.
>> It's true that I'm not aware of other scenarios where
>> filesystem-disallowed characters in task/executor IDs have caused 
>> issues
>> for users, and this issue has existed for a long time. However, when
>> feasible I would like to fix issues that we're aware of before they 
>> cause
>> problems for users, rather than after. I would suggest that since we 
>> have
>> one compelling case that we need to address now, it's worth 
>> formulating an
>> approach for the general case, so that we can be sure any current work
>> doesn't get in our way later on.
>>> I'm somewhat comfortable doing so only for Windows, as we don't 
>>> really
>>> need to worry about the recovery scenario; but very uncomfortable 
>>> about
>>> doing so for Linux etc., for precisely that reason.
>>> So expanding this is definitely up for debate; but we must fix the 
>>> bug
>>> with `:`.
>> Indeed, addressing the general case may prove to be much more complex 
>> - I
>> can certainly identify with this situation, where a fix for a smaller 
>> issue
>> turns into a big project :)
>> It may turn out to be possible to implement a scoped-down solution for 
>> the
>> colon case now, and extend it later on. I think it would be good if we
>> could at least get an idea of how we want to handle the general case 
>> now,
>> so that any short-term solutions can be a constructive step toward the
>> long-term.
>> Cheers,
>> G

View raw message