Avoiding socket file conflicts

[zhengchenyu]

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Add node rank as part of the socket file name.

Why are the changes needed?

When I run two dlrover app to simulate multi host environment on one machine, it causes socket file conflicts.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No.

How was this patch tested?

Real job.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 14.74%. Comparing base (f3f876b) to head (7c9d7d8).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
dlrover/python/common/multi_process.py	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (0.00%) is below the target coverage (90.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.
❌ Your project check has failed because the head coverage (14.74%) is below the target coverage (81.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.
❌ Your project check has failed because you have indirect coverage changes. Learn more about Unexpected Coverage Changes and reasons for indirect coverage changes.

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (f3f876b) and HEAD (7c9d7d8). Click for more details.

HEAD has 3 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (f3f876b)	HEAD (7c9d7d8)
	4	1

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1643       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   80.05%   14.74%   -65.31%     
===========================================
  Files         228      228               
  Lines       22117    22108        -9     
===========================================
- Hits        17705     3260    -14445     
- Misses       4412    18848    +14436     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[BalaBalaYi]

First, the job name must be unique. If it is not, problems will arise not only here.
Second, if the job name is unique, this issue simply wouldn't exist here. (The lifecycle of a job is completely bound to the pod.)