When the scheduler tries to find a placement for a new allocation, it iterates
over a subset of nodes. For each node, we populate a `NetworkIndex` bitmap with
the ports of all existing allocations and any other allocations already proposed
as part of this same evaluation via its `SetAllocs` method. Then we make an
"ask" of the `NetworkIndex` in `AssignPorts` for any ports we need and receive
an "offer" in return. The offer will include both static ports and any dynamic
port assignments.
The `AssignPorts` method was written to support group networks, and it shares
code that selects dynamic ports with the original `AssignTaskNetwork`
code. `AssignTaskNetwork` can request multiple ports from the bitmap at a
time. But `AssignPorts` requests them one at a time and does not account for
possible collisions, and doesn't return an error in that case.
What happens next varies:
1. If the scheduler doesn't place the allocation on that node, the port
conflict is thrown away and there's no problem.
2. If the node is picked and this is the only allocation (or last allocation),
the plan applier will reject the plan when it calls `SetAllocs`, as we'd expect.
3. If the node is picked and there are additional allocations in the same eval
that iterate over the same node, their call to `SetAllocs` will detect the
impossible state and the node will be rejected. This can have the puzzling
behavior where a second task group for the job without any networking at all
can hit a port collision error!
It looks like this bug has existed since we implemented group networks, but
there are several factors that add up to making the issue rare for many users
yet frustratingly frequent for others:
* You're more likely to hit this bug the more tightly packed your range for
dynamic ports is. With 12000 ports in the range by default, many clusters can
avoid this for a long time.
* You're more likely to hit case (3) for jobs with lots of allocations or if a
scheduler has to iterate over a large number of nodes, such as with system jobs,
jobs with `spread` blocks, or (sometimes) jobs using `unique` constraints.
For unlucky combinations of these factors, it's possible that case (3) happens
repeatedly, preventing scheduling of a given job until a client state
change (ex. restarting the agent so all its allocations are rescheduled
elsewhere) re-opens the range of dynamic ports available.
This changeset:
* Fixes the bug by accounting for collisions in dynamic port selection in
`AssignPorts`.
* Adds test coverage for `AssignPorts`, expands coverage of this case for the
deprecated `AssignTaskNetwork`, and tightens the dynamic port range in a
scheduler test for spread scheduling to more easily detect this kind of problem
in the future.
* Adds a `String()` method to `Bitmap` so that any future "screaming" log lines
have a human-readable list of used ports.
* scheduler: stopped-yet-running allocs are still running
* scheduler: test new stopped-but-running logic
* test: assert nonoverlapping alloc behavior
Also add a simpler Wait test helper to improve line numbers and save few
lines of code.
* docs: tried my best to describe #10446
it's not concise... feedback welcome
* scheduler: fix test that allowed overlapping allocs
* devices: only free devices when ClientStatus is terminal
* test: output nicer failure message if err==nil
Co-authored-by: Mahmood Ali <mahmood@hashicorp.com>
Co-authored-by: Michael Schurter <mschurter@hashicorp.com>
Fixes#13505
This fixes#13505 by treating reserved_ports like we treat a lot of jobspec settings: merging settings from more global stanzas (client.reserved.reserved_ports) "down" into more specific stanzas (client.host_networks[].reserved_ports).
As discussed in #13505 there are other options, and since it's totally broken right now we have some flexibility:
Treat overlapping reserved_ports on addresses as invalid and refuse to start agents. However, I'm not sure there's a cohesive model we want to publish right now since so much 0.9-0.12 compat code still exists! We would have to explain to folks that if their -network-interface and host_network addresses overlapped, they could only specify reserved_ports in one place or the other?! It gets ugly.
Use the global client.reserved.reserved_ports value as the default and treat host_network[].reserverd_ports as overrides. My first suggestion in the issue, but @groggemans made me realize the addresses on the agent's interface (as configured by -network-interface) may overlap with host_networks, so you'd need to remove the global reserved_ports from addresses shared with a shared network?! This seemed really confusing and subtle for users to me.
So I think "merging down" creates the most expressive yet understandable approach. I've played around with it a bit, and it doesn't seem too surprising. The only frustrating part is how difficult it is to observe the available addresses and ports on a node! However that's a job for another PR.
