Hi Xintong
thanks for your advice, the POC web and the FLIP doc was updated now
here is the new link:
http://101.132.122.69:8081/web/#/task-manager/7e7cf0293645c8537caab915c829aa73/metrics


Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月21日周五 下午12:00写道:

> >
> > 1. Should the managed memory be part of direct memory?
> >
> The answer is no. Managed memory is currently allocated by accessing to
> private field of Unsafe. It is not accounted for in JVM's direct memory
> limit and corresponding metrics. To that end, it is equivalent to
> native memory.
>
>
> > 2. Should the shuffle memory also be part of the managed memory?
>
> I don't think so. Shuffle (Network) memory is allocated with direct
> buffers, and accounted for in JVM's direct memory limit and corresponding
> metrics. Moreover, the FLIP-49 memory model expose network memory and
> managed memory as two independent components of the overall memory
> footprint.
>
>
> Thank you~
>
> Xintong Song
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:45 AM Kurt Young <ykt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Some questions related to "managed memory":
> >
> > 1. Should the managed memory be part of direct memory?
> > 2. Should the shuffle memory also be part of the managed memory?
> >
> > Best,
> > Kurt
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:41 AM Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for driving this FLIP, Yadong.
> > >
> > > +1 (non-binding) for the FLIP in general. I think this really helps our
> > > users to understand and use the new FLIP-49 memory configuration.
> > >
> > > I have a few minor comments.
> > > - There's a frame "Other" in the frame "Non-Heap", besides "JVM
> Overhead"
> > > and "JVM Metaspace". IIUC, the purpose of this is to explain the
> > > mismatching between the metric "non-heap maximum" and the sum of the
> > > configurations "JVM metaspace" & "JVM Overhead". However, from the
> > > perspective of FLIP-49, JVM Overhead accounts for all the JVM non-heap
> > > memory usages except for metaspace. The metrics does not match the
> > > configuration because we did not set the a JVM parameter for "max
> > non-heap
> > > memory" (actually I'm not sure whether it can be specified in java 8).
> > The
> > > current UI might confuse people making them think there are other
> > non-heap
> > > memory usages not accounted by the configurations. Therefore, I would
> > > suggest to remove the "Other" frame, but add another frame inside "JVM
> > > Overhead", besides "Configuration", with "JVM limit" as the title and
> > > "non-heap max metric minus metaspace configuration" as the value .
> > >
> > > - In the final release, we have changed "shuffle memory" to "network
> > > memory" because the latter is easier to understand for users. I think
> we
> > > should be updated it in this FLIP as well.
> > >
> > > - There's a typo "Directed" (should be "Direct") at the direct memory
> > > metric.
> > >
> > > Thank you~
> > >
> > > Xintong Song
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 5:52 PM Yadong Xie <vthink...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all
> > > >
> > > > I want to start the vote for FLIP-102, which proposes to add more
> > metrics
> > > > to the task manager in web UI.
> > > >
> > > > To help everyone better understand the proposal, we spent some
> efforts
> > on
> > > > making an online POC
> > > >
> > > > previous web:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://101.132.122.69:8081/#/task-manager/6df6c5f37b2bff125dbc3a7388128559/metrics
> > > > POC web:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://101.132.122.69:8081/web/#/task-manager/6df6c5f37b2bff125dbc3a7388128559/metrics
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The vote will last for at least 72 hours, following the consensus
> > voting
> > > > process.
> > > >
> > > > FLIP wiki:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-102%3A+Add+More+Metrics+to+TaskManager
> > > >
> > > > Discussion thread:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-75-Flink-Web-UI-Improvement-Proposal-td33540.html
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Yadong
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to