Skip to content

Conversation

@zhengchenyu
Copy link
Contributor

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Configure the below parameter which is constant before.

  • the timeout of worker connect to master.
  • the retry time of worker connect to master.
  • the timeout of the master to check the node alive.

Why are the changes needed?

In some scenarios, these non-configurable default values ​​are set too large, resulting in, for example, a 10-minute hang time.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

Add all config have default value.

How was this patch tested?

Real job.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 24, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 80.06%. Comparing base (f3f876b) to head (e86845a).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1645   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   80.05%   80.06%           
=======================================
  Files         228      228           
  Lines       22117    22127   +10     
=======================================
+ Hits        17705    17715   +10     
  Misses       4412     4412           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

training_log_file: str = ""
failure_node_errors: str = ""
numa_affinity: bool = False
connect_master_timeout = 300
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's unnecessary to define these two parameters here. You can refer to the timeout mechanism inside the master server/client and leverage existing parameters (by exposing them via config).

Additionally, note that these parameters should not be passed through dlrover-run; instead, they should be directly obtained by the master through job args.

@BalaBalaYi BalaBalaYi added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 21, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants