Skip to content

CLDSRV-992: Wait for the file data daemon before the S3 API - #6277

Merged
bert-e merged 1 commit into
development/9.3from
improvement/CLDSRV-992-wait-for-file-backend-ports
Sep 10, 2026
Merged

CLDSRV-992: Wait for the file data daemon before the S3 API#6277
bert-e merged 1 commit into
development/9.3from
improvement/CLDSRV-992-wait-for-file-backend-ports

Conversation

@anurag4DSB

@anurag4DSB anurag4DSB commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

yarn start launches the S3 API and the file daemons as separate parallel processes, so they race. On various CI runs, the API bound :8000 at t+10s and served writes from t+15s while the dataserver only bound :9991 at t+84s, and the ten HTTP 500s in between are all ECONNREFUSED 0.0.0.0:9991; the same subdir pre-creation step took 2.7s on a healthy runner, which is why it is intermittent.

Context on why cloudserver does not catch this itself: metadata.setup() opens the metadata client and throws if 9990 is unreachable, so the API cannot bind without working metadata, which matches the run where CreateBucket and every metadata read succeeded and only the data path failed. Nothing guards the data daemon, because clientCheck returns a hardcoded { code: 200, message: 'OK' } for clients that implement no probe and DataFileInterface implements none. So the deep healthcheck only really checks metadata, and only for the mongo and bucketd clients. We could add the file backend to the deep check and let the product gate itself, which would make this change unnecessary, but that is an Arsenal change.

So the four jobs on the file data backend now wait on :9991 before :8000, including the second startup phase of sse-kms-migration-tests where a fresh cloudserver container is started. 120s because 84s was observed; a healthy run pays nothing since the wait returns as soon as the port answers.

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hello anurag4dsb,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options
name description privileged authored
/after_pull_request Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval Bypass the pull request author's approval
/bypass_build_status Bypass the build and test status
/bypass_commit_size Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA
/bypass_incompatible_branch Bypass the check on the source branch prefix
/bypass_jira_check Bypass the Jira issue check
/bypass_peer_approval Bypass the pull request peers' approval
/bypass_leader_approval Bypass the pull request leaders' approval
/bypass_source_branch_lineage Bypass the cross-branch contamination check
/approve Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request. ✍️
/create_pull_requests Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.
Available commands
name description privileged
/help Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request.
/clear Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Incorrect fix version

The Fix Version/s in issue CLDSRV-992 contains:

  • None

Considering where you are trying to merge, I ignored possible hotfix versions and I expected to find:

  • 9.3.21

  • 9.4.4

  • 9.5.0

Please check the Fix Version/s of CLDSRV-992, or the target
branch of this pull request.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 85.32%. Comparing base (d000474) to head (7904b09).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on development/9.3.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph
see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##           development/9.3    #6277      +/-   ##
===================================================
+ Coverage            85.28%   85.32%   +0.03%     
===================================================
  Files                  206      206              
  Lines                13435    13435              
===================================================
+ Hits                 11458    11463       +5     
+ Misses                1977     1972       -5     
Flag Coverage Δ
file-ft-tests 68.36% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
file-ft-tests-null-compat 68.91% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
kmip-ft-tests 28.35% <ø> (ø)
mongo-v0-ft-tests 69.62% <ø> (+0.05%) ⬆️
mongo-v1-ft-tests 69.61% <ø> (+0.06%) ⬆️
multiple-backend 36.82% <ø> (-0.03%) ⬇️
s3c-ft-tests-v0 64.04% <ø> (+0.03%) ⬆️
s3c-ft-tests-v0-null-compat 64.06% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
s3c-ft-tests-v1 63.98% <ø> (ø)
sur-tests 36.79% <ø> (ø)
sur-tests-inflights 37.83% <ø> (ø)
unit 71.27% <ø> (ø)
utapi-v2-tests 34.61% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Comment thread .github/workflows/tests.yaml Outdated
Comment thread .github/workflows/tests.yaml Outdated
Comment thread .github/workflows/tests.yaml Outdated
Comment thread .github/workflows/tests.yaml Outdated
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-992-wait-for-file-backend-ports branch from c853cdb to 7d31356 Compare September 8, 2026 06:13
Comment thread .github/workflows/tests.yaml
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-992-wait-for-file-backend-ports branch 2 times, most recently from 9572552 to cec915a Compare September 8, 2026 06:32
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-992-wait-for-file-backend-ports branch from cec915a to b8e6df3 Compare September 8, 2026 10:57
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB changed the base branch from development/9.3 to improvement/CLDSRV-992-server-access-log-match September 8, 2026 10:58
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-992-server-access-log-match branch from a4c6f76 to 5036d12 Compare September 8, 2026 11:02
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-992-wait-for-file-backend-ports branch from b8e6df3 to 365405b Compare September 8, 2026 11:06
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-992-server-access-log-match branch from 5036d12 to 65cb3c4 Compare September 8, 2026 11:07
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-992-wait-for-file-backend-ports branch from 365405b to 86af73d Compare September 8, 2026 11:07
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB marked this pull request as ready for review September 8, 2026 11:17
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-992-wait-for-file-backend-ports branch 3 times, most recently from efe3fd8 to 11b1f52 Compare September 8, 2026 11:31
@anurag4DSB anurag4DSB changed the title CLDSRV-992: Wait for the file metadata and data daemons, not just the S3 API CLDSRV-992: Wait for the file data daemon before the S3 API Sep 8, 2026
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-992-server-access-log-match branch 2 times, most recently from 278feb5 to c79db25 Compare September 8, 2026 11:47
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-992-wait-for-file-backend-ports branch from 11b1f52 to d979972 Compare September 8, 2026 11:47
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-992-server-access-log-match branch from c79db25 to d000474 Compare September 8, 2026 13:18
`yarn start` launches the S3 API and the file daemons as separate parallel
processes (npm-run-all --parallel start_dmd start_s3server), so they race. On
run 33734792029 the API bound :8000 at t+10s and served writes from t+15s while
the dataserver only bound :9991 at t+84s, and the ten HTTP 500s in between are
all ECONNREFUSED 0.0.0.0:9991. The same subdir pre-creation step took 2.7s on a
healthy runner, which is why this is intermittent.

Context on why cloudserver does not catch this itself. metadata.setup() opens
the metadata client and throws if 9990 is unreachable, so the API cannot bind
without working metadata, which matches the run: CreateBucket and every metadata
read succeeded and only the data path failed. Nothing guards the data daemon,
because clientCheck returns a hardcoded { code: 200, message: 'OK' } for clients
that implement no probe and DataFileInterface implements none. So the deep
healthcheck only really checks metadata, and only for the mongo and bucketd
clients. Adding the file backend to the deep check would let the product gate
itself and make this change unnecessary, but that belongs in Arsenal.

Gate on 9991 in the four jobs that use the file data backend: file-ft-tests,
kmip-ft-tests, kmip-cluster-ft-tests and sse-kms-migration-tests, the last of
which starts a fresh cloudserver container in a second phase and needs the gate
there too. 120s because 84s was observed; a healthy run pays nothing since the
wait returns as soon as the port answers.

Clears CLDSRV-992 row F1 (ten of its twelve failures) and is the leading
candidate for rows F2 and F3, whose jobs share this boot path.

Issue: CLDSRV-992
@anurag4DSB
anurag4DSB force-pushed the improvement/CLDSRV-992-wait-for-file-backend-ports branch from d979972 to 7904b09 Compare September 8, 2026 13:19
anurag4DSB added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 8, 2026
`yarn start` launches the S3 API and the file daemons as separate parallel
processes (npm-run-all --parallel start_dmd start_s3server), so they race. On
run 33734792029 the API bound :8000 at t+10s and served writes from t+15s while
the dataserver only bound :9991 at t+84s, and the ten HTTP 500s in between are
all ECONNREFUSED 0.0.0.0:9991. The same subdir pre-creation step took 2.7s on a
healthy runner, which is why this is intermittent.

Cloudserver's own startup partly guards this already: metadata.setup() opens the
metadata client and throws if 9990 is unreachable, so the API cannot bind
without working metadata. This branch's Arsenal pin was checked and behaves the
same way, so only the data daemon needs a gate. Nothing guards that, because
clientCheck returns a hardcoded { code: 200, message: 'OK' } for clients that
implement no probe and DataFileInterface implements none, so the deep
healthcheck only really checks metadata and only for the mongo and bucketd
clients.

Gate on 9991 in the four jobs that use the file data backend: file-ft-tests,
kmip-ft-tests, kmip-cluster-ft-tests and sse-kms-migration-tests, the last of
which starts a fresh cloudserver container in a second phase and needs the gate
there too. 120s because 84s was observed; a healthy run pays nothing since the
wait returns as soon as the port answers.

Backport of #6277

Issue: CLDSRV-992
anurag4DSB added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 8, 2026
`yarn start` launches the S3 API and the file daemons as separate parallel
processes (npm-run-all --parallel start_dmd start_s3server), so they race. On
run 33734792029 the API bound :8000 at t+10s and served writes from t+15s while
the dataserver only bound :9991 at t+84s, and the ten HTTP 500s in between are
all ECONNREFUSED 0.0.0.0:9991. The same subdir pre-creation step took 2.7s on a
healthy runner, which is why this is intermittent.

Cloudserver's own startup partly guards this already: metadata.setup() opens the
metadata client and throws if 9990 is unreachable, so the API cannot bind
without working metadata. This branch's Arsenal pin was checked and behaves the
same way, so only the data daemon needs a gate. Nothing guards that, because
clientCheck returns a hardcoded { code: 200, message: 'OK' } for clients that
implement no probe and DataFileInterface implements none, so the deep
healthcheck only really checks metadata and only for the mongo and bucketd
clients.

Gate on 9991 in the four jobs that use the file data backend: file-ft-tests,
kmip-ft-tests, kmip-cluster-ft-tests and sse-kms-migration-tests, the last of
which starts a fresh cloudserver container in a second phase and needs the gate
there too. 120s because 84s was observed; a healthy run pays nothing since the
wait returns as soon as the port answers.

Backport of #6277

Issue: CLDSRV-992
anurag4DSB added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 8, 2026
`yarn start` launches the S3 API and the file daemons as separate parallel
processes (npm-run-all --parallel start_dmd start_s3server), so they race. On
run 33734792029 the API bound :8000 at t+10s and served writes from t+15s while
the dataserver only bound :9991 at t+84s, and the ten HTTP 500s in between are
all ECONNREFUSED 0.0.0.0:9991. The same subdir pre-creation step took 2.7s on a
healthy runner, which is why this is intermittent.

Cloudserver's own startup partly guards this already: metadata.setup() opens the
metadata client and throws if 9990 is unreachable, so the API cannot bind
without working metadata. This branch's Arsenal pin was checked and behaves the
same way, so only the data daemon needs a gate. Nothing guards that, because
clientCheck returns a hardcoded { code: 200, message: 'OK' } for clients that
implement no probe and DataFileInterface implements none, so the deep
healthcheck only really checks metadata and only for the mongo and bucketd
clients.

Gate on 9991 in the four jobs that use the file data backend: file-ft-tests,
kmip-ft-tests, kmip-cluster-ft-tests and sse-kms-migration-tests, the last of
which starts a fresh cloudserver container in a second phase and needs the gate
there too. 120s because 84s was observed; a healthy run pays nothing since the
wait returns as soon as the port answers.

Backport of #6277

Issue: CLDSRV-992
Base automatically changed from improvement/CLDSRV-992-server-access-log-match to development/9.3 September 10, 2026 05:25
@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Request integration branches

Waiting for integration branch creation to be requested by the user.

To request integration branches, please comment on this pull request with the following command:

/create_integration_branches

Alternatively, the /approve and /create_pull_requests commands will automatically
create the integration branches.

@anurag4DSB

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/create_integration_branches

@anurag4DSB

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/approve

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Integration data created

I have created the integration data for the additional destination branches.

The following branches will NOT be impacted:

  • development/7.10
  • development/7.4
  • development/7.70
  • development/8.8
  • development/9.0
  • development/9.1
  • development/9.2

You can set option create_pull_requests if you need me to create
integration pull requests in addition to integration branches, with:

@bert-e create_pull_requests

The following options are set: create_integration_branches

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Waiting for approval

The following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:

  • the author

  • 2 peers

The following options are set: create_integration_branches

@anurag4DSB

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/approve

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

In the queue

The changeset has received all authorizations and has been added to the
relevant queue(s). The queue(s) will be merged in the target development
branch(es) as soon as builds have passed.

The changeset will be merged in:

  • ✔️ development/9.3

  • ✔️ development/9.4

  • ✔️ development/9.5

The following branches will NOT be impacted:

  • development/7.10
  • development/7.4
  • development/7.70
  • development/8.8
  • development/9.0
  • development/9.1
  • development/9.2

This pull request does not target the following hotfix branch(es) so they
will be left untouched:

  • hotfix/7.70.11
  • hotfix/7.10.15
  • hotfix/7.70.45
  • hotfix/7.9.0
  • hotfix/9.0.7
  • hotfix/7.10.1
  • hotfix/7.10.3
  • hotfix/7.70.21
  • hotfix/9.2.36
  • hotfix/7.10.2
  • hotfix/7.10.4
  • hotfix/7.6.0
  • hotfix/7.70.51
  • hotfix/7.4.1
  • hotfix/7.10.27
  • hotfix/7.8.0
  • hotfix/7.10.30
  • hotfix/7.4.3
  • hotfix/6.4.7
  • hotfix/7.4.5
  • hotfix/7.4.6
  • hotfix/7.4.4
  • hotfix/7.4.2
  • hotfix/7.4.8
  • hotfix/7.10.8
  • hotfix/8.8.45
  • hotfix/7.4.7
  • hotfix/9.3.13
  • hotfix/9.2.24
  • hotfix/7.70.73
  • hotfix/7.10.0
  • hotfix/7.10.28
  • hotfix/7.4.10
  • hotfix/9.0.32
  • hotfix/7.4.0
  • hotfix/7.2.0
  • hotfix/7.10.49
  • hotfix/7.4.9
  • hotfix/7.7.0

There is no action required on your side. You will be notified here once
the changeset has been merged. In the unlikely event that the changeset
fails permanently on the queue, a member of the admin team will
contact you to help resolve the matter.

IMPORTANT

Please do not attempt to modify this pull request.

  • Any commit you add on the source branch will trigger a new cycle after the
    current queue is merged.
  • Any commit you add on one of the integration branches will be lost.

If you need this pull request to be removed from the queue, please contact a
member of the admin team now.

The following options are set: approve, create_integration_branches

@bert-e

bert-e commented Sep 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I have successfully merged the changeset of this pull request
into targetted development branches:

  • ✔️ development/9.3

  • ✔️ development/9.4

  • ✔️ development/9.5

The following branches have NOT changed:

  • development/7.10
  • development/7.4
  • development/7.70
  • development/8.8
  • development/9.0
  • development/9.1
  • development/9.2

Please check the status of the associated issue CLDSRV-992.

Goodbye anurag4dsb.

@bert-e
bert-e merged commit 7904b09 into development/9.3 Sep 10, 2026
40 checks passed
@bert-e
bert-e deleted the improvement/CLDSRV-992-wait-for-file-backend-ports branch September 10, 2026 06:03
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.

4 participants