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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

HPCC-32470 Document OUTPUT and BUILD support for PLANE option #19078

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 25, 2024
Merged

HPCC-32470 Document OUTPUT and BUILD support for PLANE option #19078

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 25, 2024
+143 −23

Conversation

JamesDeFabia
Copy link
Contributor

@JamesDeFabia JamesDeFabia commented Sep 4, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Type of change:

  • This change is a bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
  • This change is a new feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
  • This change improves the code (refactor or other change that does not change the functionality)
  • This change fixes warnings (the fix does not alter the functionality or the generated code)
  • This change is a breaking change (fix or feature that will cause existing behavior to change).
  • This change alters the query API (existing queries will have to be recompiled)

Checklist:

  • My code follows the code style of this project.
    • My code does not create any new warnings from compiler, build system, or lint.
  • The commit message is properly formatted and free of typos.
    • The commit message title makes sense in a changelog, by itself.
    • The commit is signed.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
    • I have updated the documentation accordingly, or...
    • I have created a JIRA ticket to update the documentation.
    • Any new interfaces or exported functions are appropriately commented.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTORS document.
  • The change has been fully tested:
    • I have added tests to cover my changes.
    • All new and existing tests passed.
    • I have checked that this change does not introduce memory leaks.
    • I have used Valgrind or similar tools to check for potential issues.
  • I have given due consideration to all of the following potential concerns:
    • Scalability
    • Performance
    • Security
    • Thread-safety
    • Cloud-compatibility
    • Premature optimization
    • Existing deployed queries will not be broken
    • This change fixes the problem, not just the symptom
    • The target branch of this pull request is appropriate for such a change.
  • There are no similar instances of the same problem that should be addressed
    • I have addressed them here
    • I have raised JIRA issues to address them separately
  • This is a user interface / front-end modification
    • I have tested my changes in multiple modern browsers
    • The component(s) render as expected

Smoketest:

  • Send notifications about my Pull Request position in Smoketest queue.
  • Test my draft Pull Request.

Testing:

https://github.com/JamesDeFabia/github-action-dev-build/actions/runs/10707996179

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Sep 4, 2024

Jira Issue: https://hpccsystems.atlassian.net//browse/HPCC-32470

Jirabot Action Result:
Workflow Transition To: Merge Pending
Updated PR

jakesmith
jakesmith reviewed Sep 5, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@jakesmith jakesmith left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@JamesDeFabia - please see comments

docs/EN_US/ECLLanguageReference/ECLR_mods/BltInFunc-BUILD.xml Outdated
for the cluster on which the workunit executes. The number of
physical file parts written to disk is always determined by the
number of nodes in the cluster on which the workunit executes,
regardless of the number of nodes on the target cluster(s)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this is misleading (.. "target cluster"). The target plane is a data plane, and has no cluster or nodes directly associated with it. In the cloud a data plane is a storage mapping, no nodes involved.
A plane can have an independent # of stripes (determined by plane.numDevices), but that does not affect the # of physical parts written.
Suggestion:

The number of physical file parts written to disk is always determined by the number of nodes in the cluster on which the workunit executes, regardless of the configuration of the target plane(s).

docs/EN_US/ECLLanguageReference/ECLR_mods/BltInFunc-BUILD.xml Outdated
names of the clusters or planes to write the
<emphasis>indexfile</emphasis> to. The cluster names must be
listed as they appear on the ECL Watch Activity page or returned
by the Std.System.Thorlib.Group() function, optionally with
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The cluster names must be listed as they appear on the ECL Watch Activity page or returned by the Std.System.Thorlib.Group() function.

Not true in containerized. Planes are independent and there may be many (and I am not sure if they are listed in EclWatch anywhere at the moment - I've opened JIRA: https://hpccsystems.atlassian.net/browse/HPCC-32624).
And Thorlib.Group() makes no sense in containerized - there is no fixed group (of nodes) in cloud.

docs/EN_US/ECLLanguageReference/ECLR_mods/BltInFunc-BUILD.xml Outdated
by the Std.System.Thorlib.Group() function, optionally with
square brackets containing a comma-delimited list of
node-numbers (1-based) and/or ranges (specified with a dash, as
in n-m) to indicate the specific set of nodes to write to.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this description would benefit from clearly separating out the BM/Cluster meaning/semantics, to the Containerized/Plane semantics.

At 1st glance, the above sounds like it generically applies to both, but Std.System.Thorlib.Group() makes no sense in containerized, nor does the optional node-number functionality.

Not true in containerized. Planes are independent and there may be many (and I am not sure if they are listed in EclWatch anywhere at the moment - I've opened JIRA: https://hpccsystems.atlassian.net/browse/HPCC-32624).
And Thorlib.Group() makes no sense in containerized - there is no fixed group (of nodes) in cloud.

docs/EN_US/ECLLanguageReference/ECLR_mods/BltInFunc-OUTPUT.xml Outdated
default plane for the cluster on which the workunit executes.
The number of physical file parts written to disk is always
determined by the number of nodes in the cluster on which the
workunit executes, regardless of the number of nodes on the
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

see previous comments - i.e. no nodes involved on a data plane..

docs/EN_US/ECLLanguageReference/ECLR_mods/BltInFunc-OUTPUT.xml Outdated
names of the clusters or planes to write the file to. The names
must be listed as they appear on the ECL Watch Activity page or
returned by the Std.System.Thorlib.Group() function, optionally
with square brackets containing a comma-delimited list of
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

see prev. comments re. clarifying semantics between BM/Cluster and Containerized/Plane

docs/EN_US/ECLLanguageReference/ECLR_mods/BltInFunc-OUTPUT.xml Outdated
names of the clusters or planes to write the file to. The names
must be listed as they appear on the ECL Watch Activity page or
returned by the Std.System.Thorlib.Group() function, optionally
with square brackets containing a comma-delimited list of
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

see prev. comments

docs/EN_US/ECLLanguageReference/ECLR_mods/BltInFunc-OUTPUT.xml Outdated
The number of physical file parts written to disk is always
determined by the number of nodes in the cluster on which the
workunit executes, regardless of the number of nodes on the
target. </entry>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

see prev. comments

docs/EN_US/ECLLanguageReference/ECLR_mods/BltInFunc-OUTPUT.xml Outdated
names of the clusters or planes to write the file to. The names
must be listed as they appear on the ECL Watch Activity page or
returned by the Std.System.Thorlib.Group() function, optionally
with square brackets containing a comma-delimited list of
node-numbers (1-based) and/or ranges (specified with a dash, as
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

see prev. comments

docs/EN_US/ECLLanguageReference/ECLR_mods/BltInFunc-OUTPUT.xml Outdated
The number of physical file parts written to disk is always
determined by the number of nodes in the cluster on which the
workunit executes, regardless of the number of nodes on the
target.</entry>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

see prev. comments

docs/EN_US/ECLLanguageReference/ECLR_mods/BltInFunc-OUTPUT.xml Outdated
@@ -1151,8 +1214,11 @@ OUTPUT(B,,'fred3.xml',XML('MyRow',TRIM,OPT));
by the Std.System.Thorlib.Group() function, optionally with
square brackets containing a comma-delimited list of
node-numbers (1-based) and/or ranges (specified with a dash, as
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

see prev. comments

@JamesDeFabia JamesDeFabia force-pushed the HPCC-32470PlaneOutputBuild branch from d131166 to e5026e6 Compare September 18, 2024 22:08
@JamesDeFabia
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jakesmith Please have another look. I completely revised my approach based on your feedback.

jakesmith
jakesmith approved these changes Sep 24, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@jakesmith jakesmith left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@JamesDeFabia - looks good.

@ghalliday - should this target an earlier version?

@ghalliday ghalliday merged commit fa97fd1 into hpcc-systems:candidate-9.8.x Sep 25, 2024
49 of 50 checks passed
@ghalliday
Copy link
Member

Merged as is - people tend to use the most recent documentation I would have thought.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jakesmith jakesmith jakesmith approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@JamesDeFabia @ghalliday @jakesmith