Skip to content

[fix](balance) Fix PartitionRebalancer generating invalid moves to BEs without required storage medium (#62206)#63755

Open
deardeng wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:branch-4.0from
deardeng:pick-62206-40
Open

[fix](balance) Fix PartitionRebalancer generating invalid moves to BEs without required storage medium (#62206)#63755
deardeng wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:branch-4.0from
deardeng:pick-62206-40

Conversation

@deardeng
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

pick from #62206

When tablet_rebalancer_type=Partition, adding a new BE with only HDD disks to a cluster where tables use SSD storage medium causes the PartitionRebalancer to generate invalid moves (SSD tablets -> HDD-only BE), resulting in infinite "paths has no available balance slot: []" scheduling failures.

Root cause:

  1. In LoadStatisticForTag.init(), beByTotalReplicaCount for each medium includes ALL available BEs without checking hasMedium(). This causes the greedy algorithm to consider HDD-only BEs as valid destinations for SSD tablets.
  2. In LocalTabletInvertedIndex.buildPartitionInfoBySkew(), the countMap initialization uses all availableBeIds without medium filtering, so HDD-only BEs get counted with 0 replicas for SSD partitions, making them appear as the "least loaded" and preferred move target.

Fix:

  1. Add hasMedium() filter in LoadStatisticForTag.init() when building beByTotalReplicaCount, so only BEs that actually have the required medium are considered for balancing.
  2. Add availableBeIdsByMedium parameter to buildPartitionInfoBySkew() and use it to initialize countMap with only medium-matching BEs, preventing BEs without the required medium from appearing in the skew calculation.

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #xxx

Related PR: #xxx

Problem Summary:

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

  • Test

    • Regression test
    • Unit Test
    • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
    • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
      • This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
      • Previous test can cover this change.
      • No code files have been changed.
      • Other reason
  • Behavior changed:

    • No.
    • Yes.
  • Does this need documentation?

    • No.
    • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

  • Confirm the release note
  • Confirm test cases
  • Confirm document
  • Add branch pick label

…s without required storage medium (apache#62206)

When tablet_rebalancer_type=Partition, adding a new BE with only HDD
disks to a cluster where tables use SSD storage medium causes the
PartitionRebalancer to generate invalid moves (SSD tablets -> HDD-only
BE), resulting in infinite "paths has no available balance slot: []"
scheduling failures.

Root cause:
1. In LoadStatisticForTag.init(), beByTotalReplicaCount for each medium
includes ALL available BEs without checking hasMedium(). This causes the
greedy algorithm to consider HDD-only BEs as valid destinations for SSD
tablets.
2. In LocalTabletInvertedIndex.buildPartitionInfoBySkew(), the countMap
initialization uses all availableBeIds without medium filtering, so
HDD-only BEs get counted with 0 replicas for SSD partitions, making them
appear as the "least loaded" and preferred move target.

Fix:
1. Add hasMedium() filter in LoadStatisticForTag.init() when building
beByTotalReplicaCount, so only BEs that actually have the required
medium are considered for balancing.
2. Add availableBeIdsByMedium parameter to buildPartitionInfoBySkew()
and use it to initialize countMap with only medium-matching BEs,
preventing BEs without the required medium from appearing in the skew
calculation.
@hello-stephen
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@deardeng
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

run buildall

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants