Hi Max, the problem is that before starting the TM, we have to find the network interface which is reachable by the other machines. So what we do is to connect to the current JobManager. If it should happen, as in your case, that the JobManager just died and the new JM address has not been written to ZooKeeper, then the TMs don’t have much choice other than using the heuristic.
I can’t really tell why eth1 is chosen over eth0. The condition is that the interface address is an Inet4Address, no link local address as well as not a loopback address. Thus, Ufuk’s solution, to increase akka.lookup.timeout seems to be the easiest solution to solve your problem. I’ve checked the default value is set to 10 s which might be a bit too low for restarting a new JM and publishing its address via ZooKeeper. Cheers, Till On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > I had an offline chat with Till about this. He pointed out that the > address is chosen once at start up time (while not being able to > connect to the old job manager) and then it stays fixed at eth1. > > You can increase the lookup timeout by setting akka.lookup.timeout to > a higher value (like 100 s). This is the only workaroud I'm aware of > at this point. Maybe Till can chime in here whether this has other > implications as well? > > – Ufuk > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hey Max! > > > > for the first WARN in > > org.apache.flink.runtime.webmonitor.JobManagerRetriever: this is > > expected if the new leader has not updated ZooKeeper yet. The > > important thing is that the new leading job manager is eventually > > retrieved. This did happen, right? > > > > Regarding eth1 vs. eth0: After the new job manager becomes leader, the > > task manager should re-try connecting to it with the same strategy as > > in the initial connection establishment (e.g. try SLOW first and only > > fall back to HEURISTIC). Can you see in the logs whether this happens? > > > > The best thing would be to share the complete logs. Is this possible? > > If not publicly, feel free to send it to me privately (uce at apache > > org). > > > > – Ufuk > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Maximilian Bode > > <maximilian.b...@tngtech.com> wrote: > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> we are trying to get to work JobManager HA in the context of a per-job > YARN > >> session using the 1.0.0-rc3 from a few days ago and are having a problem > >> concerning task managers with several network interfaces. > >> > >> After manually killing the job manager process, the jobmanager.log on > the > >> newly allocated second job manager reads: > >> --- > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:09,635 WARN Remoting > >> - Tried to associate with unreachable remote address > >> [akka.tcp://flink@10.127.68.136:34811]. Address is now gated for 5000 > ms, > >> all messages to this address will be delivered to dead letters. Reason: > >> Connection refused: /10.127.68.136:34811 > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:09,644 WARN > >> org.apache.flink.runtime.webmonitor.JobManagerRetriever - Failed > to > >> retrieve leader gateway and port. > >> akka.actor.ActorNotFound: Actor not found for: > >> ActorSelection[Anchor(akka.tcp://flink@10.127.68.136:34811/), > >> Path(/user/jobmanager)] > >> at > >> > akka.actor.ActorSelection$$anonfun$resolveOne$1.apply(ActorSelection.scala:65) > >> at > >> > akka.actor.ActorSelection$$anonfun$resolveOne$1.apply(ActorSelection.scala:63) > >> at scala.concurrent.impl.CallbackRunnable.run(Promise.scala:32) > >> at > >> > akka.dispatch.BatchingExecutor$Batch$$anonfun$run$1.processBatch$1(BatchingExecutor.scala:67) > >> at > >> > akka.dispatch.BatchingExecutor$Batch$$anonfun$run$1.apply$mcV$sp(BatchingExecutor.scala:82) > >> at > >> > akka.dispatch.BatchingExecutor$Batch$$anonfun$run$1.apply(BatchingExecutor.scala:59) > >> at > >> > akka.dispatch.BatchingExecutor$Batch$$anonfun$run$1.apply(BatchingExecutor.scala:59) > >> at > scala.concurrent.BlockContext$.withBlockContext(BlockContext.scala:72) > >> at akka.dispatch.BatchingExecutor$Batch.run(BatchingExecutor.scala:58) > >> at > >> > akka.dispatch.ExecutionContexts$sameThreadExecutionContext$.unbatchedExecute(Future.scala:74) > >> at > akka.dispatch.BatchingExecutor$class.execute(BatchingExecutor.scala:110) > >> at > >> > akka.dispatch.ExecutionContexts$sameThreadExecutionContext$.execute(Future.scala:73) > >> at > scala.concurrent.impl.CallbackRunnable.executeWithValue(Promise.scala:40) > >> at > >> > scala.concurrent.impl.Promise$DefaultPromise.tryComplete(Promise.scala:248) > >> at akka.pattern.PromiseActorRef.$bang(AskSupport.scala:267) > >> at akka.actor.EmptyLocalActorRef.specialHandle(ActorRef.scala:508) > >> at akka.actor.DeadLetterActorRef.specialHandle(ActorRef.scala:541) > >> at akka.actor.DeadLetterActorRef.$bang(ActorRef.scala:531) > >> at > >> > akka.remote.RemoteActorRefProvider$RemoteDeadLetterActorRef.$bang(RemoteActorRefProvider.scala:87) > >> at akka.remote.EndpointWriter.postStop(Endpoint.scala:561) > >> at akka.actor.Actor$class.aroundPostStop(Actor.scala:475) > >> at akka.remote.EndpointActor.aroundPostStop(Endpoint.scala:415) > >> at > >> > akka.actor.dungeon.FaultHandling$class.akka$actor$dungeon$FaultHandling$$finishTerminate(FaultHandling.scala:210) > >> at > akka.actor.dungeon.FaultHandling$class.terminate(FaultHandling.scala:172) > >> at akka.actor.ActorCell.terminate(ActorCell.scala:369) > >> at akka.actor.ActorCell.invokeAll$1(ActorCell.scala:462) > >> at akka.actor.ActorCell.systemInvoke(ActorCell.scala:478) > >> at akka.dispatch.Mailbox.processAllSystemMessages(Mailbox.scala:279) > >> at akka.dispatch.Mailbox.run(Mailbox.scala:220) > >> at akka.dispatch.Mailbox.exec(Mailbox.scala:231) > >> at scala.concurrent.forkjoin.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:260) > >> at > >> > scala.concurrent.forkjoin.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.runTask(ForkJoinPool.java:1339) > >> at > scala.concurrent.forkjoin.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1979) > >> at > >> > scala.concurrent.forkjoin.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:107) > >> --- > >> where the IP not found is from the old job manager. So far, is this the > >> expected behavior? > >> > >> The problem then arises on a new task manager, which also tries to > connect > >> to the old job manager unsuccessfully. The > ZooKeeperLeaderRetrievalService > >> starts cycling through the available network interfaces, as can be seen > in > >> the relevant taskmanager.log: > >> --- > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:13,636 INFO > >> > org.apache.flink.runtime.leaderretrieval.ZooKeeperLeaderRetrievalService - > >> Starting ZooKeeperLeaderRetrievalService. > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:13,646 INFO > >> org.apache.flink.runtime.util.LeaderRetrievalUtils - Trying > to > >> select the network interface and address to use by connecting to the > leading > >> JobManager. > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:13,646 INFO > >> org.apache.flink.runtime.util.LeaderRetrievalUtils - > TaskManager > >> will try to connect for 10000 milliseconds before falling back to > heuristics > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:13,712 INFO > org.apache.flink.runtime.net.ConnectionUtils > >> - Retrieved new target address /10.127.68.136:34811. > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:14,079 INFO > org.apache.flink.runtime.net.ConnectionUtils > >> - Trying to connect to address /10.127.68.136:34811 > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:14,082 INFO > org.apache.flink.runtime.net.ConnectionUtils > >> - Failed to connect from address > >> 'task.manager.eth0.hostname.com/10.127.68.136': Connection refused > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:14,082 INFO > org.apache.flink.runtime.net.ConnectionUtils > >> - Failed to connect from address '/10.127.68.136': Connection refused > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:14,082 INFO > org.apache.flink.runtime.net.ConnectionUtils > >> - Failed to connect from address '/10.120.193.110': Connection refused > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:14,082 INFO > org.apache.flink.runtime.net.ConnectionUtils > >> - Failed to connect from address '/10.127.68.136': Connection refused > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:14,083 INFO > org.apache.flink.runtime.net.ConnectionUtils > >> - Failed to connect from address '/127.0.0.1': Connection refused > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:14,083 INFO > org.apache.flink.runtime.net.ConnectionUtils > >> - Failed to connect from address '/10.120.193.110': Connection refused > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:14,083 INFO > org.apache.flink.runtime.net.ConnectionUtils > >> - Failed to connect from address '/10.127.68.136': Connection refused > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:14,083 INFO > org.apache.flink.runtime.net.ConnectionUtils > >> - Failed to connect from address '/127.0.0.1': Connection refused > >> --- > >> After five repetitions, the task manager stops trying to retrieve the > leader > >> and using the HEURISTIC strategy ends up using eth1 (10.120.193.110) > from > >> now on: > >> --- > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:23,650 INFO > >> > org.apache.flink.runtime.leaderretrieval.ZooKeeperLeaderRetrievalService - > >> Stopping ZooKeeperLeaderRetrievalService. > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:23,655 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ClientCnxn > >> - EventThread shut down > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:23,655 INFO org.apache.zookeeper.ZooKeeper > >> - Session: 0x25229757cff035b closed > >> 2016-03-02 18:01:23,664 INFO > >> org.apache.flink.runtime.taskmanager.TaskManager - > TaskManager > >> will use hostname/address 'task.manager.eth1.hostname.com' > (10.120.193.110) > >> for communication. > >> --- > >> Following the new jobmanager is discovered and the taskmanager is able > to > >> register at the jobmanager using eth1. The problem is that connections > TO > >> eth1 are not possible. So flink should always use eth0. The exception we > >> later see is: > >> --- > >> java.io.IOException: Connecting the channel failed: Connecting to remote > >> task manager + 'other.task.manager.eth1.hostname/10.120.193.111:46620' > has > >> failed. This might indicate that the remote task manager has been lost. > >> at > >> > org.apache.flink.runtime.io.network.netty.PartitionRequestClientFactory$ConnectingChannel.waitForChannel(PartitionRequestClientFactory.java:196) > >> at > >> > org.apache.flink.runtime.io.network.netty.PartitionRequestClientFactory$ConnectingChannel.access$000(PartitionRequestClientFactory.java:131) > >> at > >> > org.apache.flink.runtime.io.network.netty.PartitionRequestClientFactory.createPartitionRequestClient(PartitionRequestClientFactory.java:83) > >> at > >> > org.apache.flink.runtime.io.network.netty.NettyConnectionManager.createPartitionRequestClient(NettyConnectionManager.java:60) > >> at > >> > org.apache.flink.runtime.io.network.partition.consumer.RemoteInputChannel.requestSubpartition(RemoteInputChannel.java:115) > >> at > >> > org.apache.flink.runtime.io.network.partition.consumer.SingleInputGate.requestPartitions(SingleInputGate.java:388) > >> at > >> > org.apache.flink.runtime.io.network.partition.consumer.SingleInputGate.getNextBufferOrEvent(SingleInputGate.java:411) > >> at > >> > org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.io.BarrierBuffer.getNextNonBlocked(BarrierBuffer.java:108) > >> at > >> > org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.io.StreamInputProcessor.processInput(StreamInputProcessor.java:175) > >> at > >> > org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.tasks.OneInputStreamTask.run(OneInputStreamTask.java:65) > >> at > >> > org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.tasks.StreamTask.invoke(StreamTask.java:224) > >> at org.apache.flink.runtime.taskmanager.Task.run(Task.java:559) > >> at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744) > >> --- > >> The root cause seems to be that network interface selection is still > using > >> the old jobmanager location and hence is not able to choose the right > >> interface. In particular, it seems that iteration order over the network > >> interfaces differs between the HEURISTIC and SLOW strategy, which then > leads > >> to the wrong interface being selected. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Max > >> — > >> Maximilian Bode * Junior Consultant * maximilian.b...@tngtech.com > >> TNG Technology Consulting GmbH, Betastr. 13a, 85774 Unterföhring > >> Geschäftsführer: Henrik Klagges, Christoph Stock, Dr. Robert Dahlke > >> Sitz: Unterföhring * Amtsgericht München * HRB 135082 > >> >
