Skip to content
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

workloadrepo: try to recover etcd snapID from table #59628

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

xhebox
Copy link
Contributor

@xhebox xhebox commented Feb 19, 2025

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: ref #58247

Problem Summary: Serverless TiDB wants a specialized auto-scalable etcd cluster for etcd usages in TiDB, rather than relying on PD. However, moving from PD to the new etcd cluster will also remove all persistent data on PD. We can workaround this by recovering snapID from table.

Also check tidbcloud/tidb-cse#1522

What changed and how does it work?

As title.

Check List

Tests

  • Unit test
  • Integration test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No need to test
    • I checked and no code files have been changed.

Side effects

  • Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
  • Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
  • Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

  • Affects user behaviors
  • Contains syntax changes
  • Contains variable changes
  • Contains experimental features
  • Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

None

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. labels Feb 19, 2025
Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented Feb 19, 2025

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

Copy link

ti-chi-bot bot commented Feb 19, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please ask for approval from xhebox, ensuring that each of them provides their approval before proceeding. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot added the size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. label Feb 19, 2025
Copy link

tiprow bot commented Feb 19, 2025

Hi @xhebox. Thanks for your PR.

PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with /ok-to-test in this repo meaning untrusted PR authors can never trigger tests themselves. Collaborators can still trigger tests on the PR using /test all.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@xhebox xhebox marked this pull request as ready for review February 20, 2025 02:39
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Feb 20, 2025
Signed-off-by: xhe <[email protected]>
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 20, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 78.94737% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 73.3481%. Comparing base (0ac0618) to head (b387176).
Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #59628        +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage   72.9595%   73.3481%   +0.3885%     
================================================
  Files          1694       1695         +1     
  Lines        468654     469217       +563     
================================================
+ Hits         341928     344162      +2234     
+ Misses       105675     104005      -1670     
+ Partials      21051      21050         -1     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration 42.7851% <0.0000%> (?)
unit 72.1789% <78.9473%> (+0.0306%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components Coverage Δ
dumpling 52.6910% <ø> (ø)
parser ∅ <ø> (∅)
br 45.1036% <ø> (+0.0535%) ⬆️

snapID, err = w.getSnapID(ctx)
if stderrors.Is(err, errKeyNotFound) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please add some comments on when this may happen.

return err == nil && snapID > 0
}, time.Minute, time.Second)
worker.stop()

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should probably wait for the worker to stop.

Suggested change
// wait for worker to stop
require.Eventually(t, func() bool {
return worker.cancel == nil
}, time.Second*10, time.Millisecond*100)

snapID, err := strconv.ParseUint(res[0][0].(string), 10, 64)
prevSnapID = snapID
return err == nil && snapID > 0
}, time.Minute, time.Second)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe time.Second should be time.Millisecond*100?

require.EqualError(t, errKeyNotFound, err.Error())
newSnapID, err := queryMaxSnapID(ctx, worker2.getSessionWithRetry().(sessionctx.Context))
require.Nil(t, err)
require.Equal(t, prevSnapID, newSnapID)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This code assumes that prevSnapID has to match the last run. This based on timing. It might be better to just run a SQL query to validate that this value is one greater than max(snap_id).

require.Eventually(t, func() bool {
newSnapID, err = worker2.getSnapID(ctx)
return err == nil && newSnapID >= prevSnapID
}, time.Minute, time.Second)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would retry every 100 milliseconds instead.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
release-note-none Denotes a PR that doesn't merit a release note. size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants