safe copy in local pinot fs #14883
Merged
safe copy in local pinot fs #14883
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
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #14883 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 61.75% 63.71% +1.96%
- Complexity 207 1470 +1263
============================================
Files 2436 2708 +272
Lines 133233 151510 +18277
Branches 20636 23391 +2755
============================================
+ Hits 82274 96541 +14267
- Misses 44911 47712 +2801
- Partials 6048 7257 +1209
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
jackjlli
reviewed
Jan 22, 2025
pinot-spi/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/spi/filesystem/LocalPinotFS.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
mcvsubbu
reviewed
Jan 23, 2025
pinot-spi/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/spi/filesystem/LocalPinotFS.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
pinot-spi/src/main/java/org/apache/pinot/spi/filesystem/LocalPinotFS.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
jasperjiaguo
force-pushed
the
localFsCopy
branch
from
dc364dc to
90655be
Compare
sajjad-moradi
approved these changes
Jan 23, 2025
gortiz
pushed a commit
to gortiz/pinot
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 30, 2025
* safe copy in local pinot fs * make suffix a constant * fix backup del * add restoration * format * code style * address comments * address comments * add special exception * add special exception * copy to tmp file and rename * use a backup file and delete it * refactoring * refactoring * refactoring * remove crc * remove crc * refactor time stamp
jtao15
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 31, 2025
* safe copy in local pinot fs * make suffix a constant * fix backup del * add restoration * format * code style * address comments * address comments * add special exception * add special exception * copy to tmp file and rename * use a backup file and delete it * refactoring * refactoring * refactoring * remove crc * remove crc * refactor time stamp
zeronerdzerogeekzerocool
pushed a commit
to zeronerdzerogeekzerocool/pinot
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 20, 2025
* safe copy in local pinot fs * make suffix a constant * fix backup del * add restoration * format * code style * address comments * address comments * add special exception * add special exception * copy to tmp file and rename * use a backup file and delete it * refactoring * refactoring * refactoring * remove crc * remove crc * refactor time stamp
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.
Fix the issue described in #14869
This code introduces some overhead, mainly in calculating CRC 32 for the files.copy the src file into a temp file in the same folder as the dst file
rename dst file in deep store (iff the old file exists) to a backup file
rename the temp file to the dst file
delete the backup file (iff the old file exists)
update Jan 23:
did more analysis the crc would not work on our largest data set, the data is too much for the controller to handle. (per 500mb segment takes 2 sec to generate crc in bandwidth limited deep store)