Thanks for the update @Xintong. I would be ok with starting the vote. Best, Andrey
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:12 AM Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> wrote: > The implementation plan [1] is updated, with the following changes: > > - Add default slot resource profile to > ResourceManagerGateway#registerTaskExecutor rather than #sendSlotReport. > - Swap 'TaskExecutor derive and register with default slot resource > profile' and 'Extend TaskExecutor to support dynamic slot allocation' > - Add step for updating RestAPI / Web UI > > Thank you~ > > Xintong Song > > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-56%3A+Dynamic+Slot+Allocation > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 11:49 AM Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > @Till > > Thanks for the reminding. I'll add a step for updating the web ui. I'll > > try to involve Lining to help us with this step. > > > > @Andrey > > I was thinking that after we define the RM-TM interfaces in step 2, it > > would be good to concurrently work on both RM and TM side. But yes, if we > > finish Step 4 early, then it would make step 6 easier. We can start to > have > > some IT/E2E tests, with the default slot resource profiles being > available. > > > > Thank you~ > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:50 PM Andrey Zagrebin <and...@ververica.com> > > wrote: > > > >> @Xintong > >> > >> Thanks for the feedback. > >> > >> Just to clarify step 6: > >> If the first point is done before step 5 (e.g. as part of 4) then it is > >> just keeping the info about the default slot in RM's data structure > >> associated the TM and no real change in the behaviour. > >> When this info is available, I think it can be straightforwardly used > >> during step 5 where we get either concrete slot requirement > >> or the unknown one (step 6, point 2) which simply grabs some of the > >> concrete default ones (btw not clear which one, seems just some random?) > >> > >> For steps 5,7, true, it is not quite clear whether we can avoid some > >> split, > >> e.g. after step 5 before doing step 7. > >> I agree that we should introduce the feature flag if we clearly see that > >> it > >> would be a bigger effort without the flag. > >> > >> Best, > >> Andrey > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:21 PM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > One thing which was briefly mentioned in the Flip but not in the > >> > implementation plan is the update of the web UI. I think it is worth > >> > putting an extra item for updating the web UI to properly display the > >> > resources a TM has still to offer with dynamic slot allocation. I > guess > >> we > >> > need to pull in some JavaScript help in order to implement this step. > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Till > >> > > >> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 2:15 PM Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Thanks for the comments, Andrey. > >> > > > >> > > - I agree that instead of ResourceManagerGateway#sendSlotReport, we > >> > should > >> > > add the default slot resource profile to > >> > > ResourceManagerGateway#registerTaskExecutor. > >> > > > >> > > - If I understand correctly, the reason you suggest do default slot > >> > > resource profile first and then do step 3 in a way that support both > >> > > TaskExecutorGateway#requestSlot and > >> TaskExecutorGateway#requestResource, > >> > is > >> > > to try to avoid splitting code paths with the feature option? I > think > >> we > >> > > can do that, but I also want to bring it up that this can only > reduce > >> the > >> > > code split by the feature option (which is good) but not eliminate > >> it. We > >> > > still need the feature option for the fundamental differences, e.g. > >> > > creating new SlotIDs on allocation vs. allocate to free slots with > >> > existing > >> > > SlotIDs. > >> > > > >> > > - I don't really think we can do step 5, 6 and 7 independently. > >> Basically > >> > > they are all making changes to the same component. We probably can > do > >> > step > >> > > 6 and 7 independently, but I think they both depends on step 5. > >> > > > >> > > In general, I would say it's good to have as less as possible codes > >> split > >> > > by the feature option, which makes the later clean-up easier. But if > >> it > >> > > cannot be easily done, I would rather not to put too much efforts on > >> > having > >> > > a good abstraction and deduplication between the new code path and > the > >> > > original one that we are removing soon. > >> > > > >> > > What do you think? > >> > > > >> > > Thank you~ > >> > > > >> > > Xintong Song > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:59 PM Andrey Zagrebin < > and...@ververica.com > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Hi Xintong, > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks for sharing the implementation steps. I also think they > makes > >> > > sense > >> > > > with the feature option. > >> > > > > >> > > > I was wondering if we could order the steps in a way that each > >> change > >> > > does > >> > > > not affect other components too much, always having a working > system > >> > > > then maybe the feature option does not always need to split the > >> code. > >> > > Here > >> > > > are some thoughts. > >> > > > > >> > > > - We could do default slot profile firstly and include it into the > >> TM > >> > > > registration. I would suggest to add > >> > > > to ResourceManagerGateway#registerTaskExecutor, not > sendSlotReport. > >> > > > This way RM knows about it but does not use at this point. > (parts > >> of > >> > > step > >> > > > 4,6) > >> > > > > >> > > > - We could try to do step 3 firstly in a way that it also supports > >> the > >> > > > current way of allocation in TaskExecutorGateway#requestSlot with > >> the > >> > > > default slot profile > >> > > > and sends reports both with available resources and with free > >> default > >> > > > slots which correspond to the available resources. We can just > >> remove > >> > > free > >> > > > default slots later. > >> > > > The new way of TaskExecutorGateway#requestResource could be also > >> > > > implemented here but not used yet. > >> > > > > >> > > > - Then step 5 can use the new TaskExecutorGateway#requestResource > >> and > >> > the > >> > > > default slot profile > >> > > > > >> > > > - Not sure, step 5 and 7 can be implemented independently without > >> > > > regression of what we have. Maybe if we do step 7 firstly it will > >> have > >> > > only > >> > > > default slots firstly and it will simplify step 5 later. > >> > > > > >> > > > Best, > >> > > > Andrey > >> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:53 AM Xintong Song < > tonysong...@gmail.com > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for the comments, Till and Wenlong. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > @Wenlong > >> > > > > Regarding slot sharing, the general idea is to request a slot > with > >> > > > > resources for tasks of the entire slot sharing group. Details > can > >> be > >> > > > found > >> > > > > in FLIP-53 [1], regarding how to decide the slot sharing groups > >> and > >> > how > >> > > > to > >> > > > > manage task resources within the shared slots. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thank you~ > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Xintong Song > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:42 AM wenlong.lwl < > >> > wenlong88....@gmail.com> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, Xintong, thanks for the great proposal. big +1 for the > >> feature! > >> > > It > >> > > > is > >> > > > > > something like mapreduce-1.0 to mapreduce-2.0. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I like the design on the whole. One point may need to be > >> included > >> > in > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > proposal：How we deal with slot share group and dynamic slot > >> > > allocation? > >> > > > > It > >> > > > > > can be quite different with dynamic slot allocation. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 16:42, Till Rohrmann < > >> trohrm...@apache.org> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks for the update Xintong. From a high level perspective > >> the > >> > > > > > > implementation plan looks good to me. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Cheers, > >> > > > > > > Till > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:04 AM Xintong Song < > >> > > tonysong...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Added implementation steps for this FLIP on the wiki page > >> [1]. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thank you~ > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Xintong Song > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1] > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-56%3A+Dynamic+Slot+Allocation > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:43 PM Xintong Song < > >> > > > tonysong...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > @Zili > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > As far as I know, Timo is drafting a FLIP that has taken > >> the > >> > > > number > >> > > > > > 55. > >> > > > > > > > > There is a round-up number maintained on the FLIP wiki > >> page > >> > [1] > >> > > > > shows > >> > > > > > > > > which number should be used for the new FLIP, which > >> should be > >> > > > > > increased > >> > > > > > > > by > >> > > > > > > > > whoever takes the number for a new FLIP. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thank you~ > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Xintong Song > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > [1] > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:28 AM Zili Chen < > >> > > wander4...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> We suddenly skipped FLIP-55 lol. > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> 于2019年8月19日周一 > >> > 下午10:23写道： > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > Hi everyone, > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > We would like to start a discussion thread on > "FLIP-56: > >> > > > Dynamic > >> > > > > > Slot > >> > > > > > > > >> > Allocation" [1]. This is originally part of the > >> discussion > >> > > > > thread > >> > > > > > > for > >> > > > > > > > >> > "FLIP-53: Fine Grained Resource Management" [2]. As > >> Till > >> > > > > > suggested, > >> > > > > > > we > >> > > > > > > > >> > would like split the original discussion into two > >> topics, > >> > > and > >> > > > > > start > >> > > > > > > a > >> > > > > > > > >> > separate new discussion thread as well as FLIP > process > >> for > >> > > > this > >> > > > > > one. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Thank you~ > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Xintong Song > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > [1] > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-56%3A+Dynamic+Slot+Allocation > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > [2] > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-53-Fine-Grained-Resource-Management-td31831.html > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
