Skip to content

Handle mispredictions cleanly #22

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 21, 2021
Merged

Handle mispredictions cleanly #22

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 21, 2021

Conversation

jcjones
Copy link
Collaborator

@jcjones jcjones commented Sep 20, 2021

In the real world, we might mess up when naming a partition. This should be
rare if partitionmanager is running often, since it'll rename partitions
to match reality, but when it's running only rarely, things get out of date.

This change avoids attempting to calculate rates-of-change using partitions
that don't make sense - e.g., today is July 1, and our active partition
says it starts in a week. That is plainly wrong, but we can still use our
current rate-of-change.

This expands on PR #12 by changing what the start-datetime is for new
partitions after we mispredicted - without this change, if we had partitions
through to December, but it's only August and we need more, the new partitions
would be named for January instead of reflecting reality that they need to
be named for Right Now.

This also catches a bug where we could get timestamp name collisions. This is
a lot less of an issue when I implement Tim's suggestion in #19, but for now
this just increases dates by a day to avoid a collision, and that works well.

In the real world, we might mess up when naming a partition. This should be
rare if partitionmanager is running often, since it'll rename partitions
to match reality, but when it's running only rarely, things get out of date.

This change avoids attempting to calculate rates-of-change using partitions
that don't make sense - e.g., today is July 1, and our active partition
says it starts in a week. That is plainly wrong, but we can still use our
current rate-of-change.

This expands on PR #12 by changing what the start-datetime is for new
partitions after we mispredicted - without this change, if we had partitions
through to December, but it's only August and we need more, the new partitions
would be named for January instead of reflecting reality that they need to
be named for Right Now.

This also catches a bug where we could get timestamp name collisions. This is
a lot less of an issue when I implement Tim's suggestion in #19, but for now
this just increases dates by a day to avoid a collision, and that works well.
@jcjones jcjones merged commit 8679291 into main Sep 21, 2021
@jcjones jcjones deleted the handle-mispredictions branch September 21, 2021 16:17
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