Skip to content

Replace the shard manager's pod-keyed routing table with an executor-keyed ShardLeaseState - #3757

Open
Aditya1404Sal wants to merge 5 commits into
golemcloud:mainfrom
Aditya1404Sal:shard-manager/ticket1-shard-lease-state
Open

Replace the shard manager's pod-keyed routing table with an executor-keyed ShardLeaseState#3757
Aditya1404Sal wants to merge 5 commits into
golemcloud:mainfrom
Aditya1404Sal:shard-manager/ticket1-shard-lease-state

Conversation

@Aditya1404Sal

@Aditya1404Sal Aditya1404Sal commented Aug 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

1/7 of the ShardManager Redesign.
Resolves GOL-445

@Aditya1404Sal
Aditya1404Sal requested a review from a team August 22, 2026 09:51
@netlify

netlify Bot commented Aug 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Deploy Preview for golemcloud canceled.

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit b5a9ead
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/golemcloud/deploys/6a8dce0ca7c694000893bd9c

}
}

// TODO(shard manager redesign, ticket 2): remove together with the CAS persistence migration

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

let's not commit such references to ongoing tickets in comments

@vigoo

vigoo commented Aug 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The backward compatibility is unnecessary - you can remove it to make the codebase simpler. The Golem 1.6 release is going to be breaking in many ways.

@Aditya1404Sal
Aditya1404Sal force-pushed the shard-manager/ticket1-shard-lease-state branch from 9169fdd to e2b2e89 Compare August 24, 2026 18:40
@Aditya1404Sal

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

The backward compatibility is unnecessary - you can remove it to make the codebase simpler. The Golem 1.6 release is going to be breaking in many ways.

Done.

@Aditya1404Sal

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

CI note: the group6 failure is oplog_processor_shard_reassignment_no_loss (5 != 6 at sharding.rs:1218). I reproduced it locally on pristine main (748d197) as well as on this branch — ~1 in 3 attempts on both, masked by #[flaky(3)] most of the time. It's the "no checkpoint" re-delivery the test's own comment describes, not related to the routing-table change. worker-tests-group1's failure (long_running_poll_loop_interrupting_and_resuming_by_second_invocation) passed locally on this branch too. Re-running the workflow.

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