Hi Yang and Kostas, Thanks for the clarification. It makes more sense to me if the long term goal is to replace per job mode to application mode in the future (at the time that multiple execute can be supported). Before that, It will be better to keep the concept of application mode internally. As Yang suggested, User only need to use a `-R/-- remote-deploy` cli option to launch a per job cluster with the main function executed in cluster entry-point. +1 for the execution plan.
Best Regards Peter Huang On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 7:11 AM Yang Wang <danrtsey...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Having the application mode does not mean we will drop the cluster-deploy > option. I just want to share some thoughts about “Application Mode”. > > > 1. The application mode could cover the per-job sematic. Its lifecyle is > bound > to the user `main()`. And all the jobs in the user main will be executed > in a same > Flink cluster. In first phase of FLIP-85 implementation, running user main > on the > cluster side could be supported in application mode. > > 2. Maybe in the future, we also need to support multiple `execute()` on > client side > in a same Flink cluster. Then the per-job mode will evolve to application > mode. > > 3. From user perspective, only a `-R/-- remote-deploy` cli option is > visible. They > are not aware of the application mode. > > 4. In the first phase, the application mode is working as “per-job”(only > one job in > the user main). We just leave more potential for the future. > > > I am not against with calling it “cluster deploy mode” if you all think it > is clearer for users. > > > > Best, > Yang > > Kostas Kloudas <kklou...@gmail.com> 于2020年3月3日周二 下午6:49写道： > >> Hi Peter, >> >> I understand your point. This is why I was also a bit torn about the >> name and my proposal was a bit aligned with yours (something along the >> lines of "cluster deploy" mode). >> >> But many of the other participants in the discussion suggested the >> "Application Mode". I think that the reasoning is that now the user's >> Application is more self-contained. >> It will be submitted to the cluster and the user can just disconnect. >> In addition, as discussed briefly in the doc, in the future there may >> be better support for multi-execute applications which will bring us >> one step closer to the true "Application Mode". But this is how I >> interpreted their arguments, of course they can also express their >> thoughts on the topic :) >> >> Cheers, >> Kostas >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:15 PM Peter Huang <huangzhenqiu0...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Kostas, >> > >> > Thanks for updating the wiki. We have aligned with the implementations >> in the doc. But I feel it is still a little bit confusing of the naming >> from a user's perspective. It is well known that Flink support per job >> cluster and session cluster. The concept is in the layer of how a job is >> managed within Flink. The method introduced util now is a kind of mixing >> job and session cluster to promising the implementation complexity. We >> probably don't need to label it as Application Model as the same layer of >> per job cluster and session cluster. Conceptually, I think it is still a >> cluster mode implementation for per job cluster. >> > >> > To minimize the confusion of users, I think it would be better just an >> option of per job cluster for each type of cluster manager. How do you >> think? >> > >> > >> > Best Regards >> > Peter Huang >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:22 AM Kostas Kloudas <kklou...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Yang, >> >> >> >> The difference between per-job and application mode is that, as you >> >> described, in the per-job mode the main is executed on the client >> >> while in the application mode, the main is executed on the cluster. >> >> I do not think we have to offer "application mode" with running the >> >> main on the client side as this is exactly what the per-job mode does >> >> currently and, as you described also, it would be redundant. >> >> >> >> Sorry if this was not clear in the document. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Kostas >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 3:17 PM Yang Wang <danrtsey...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Hi Kostas, >> >> > >> >> > Thanks a lot for your conclusion and updating the FLIP-85 WIKI. >> Currently, i have no more >> >> > questions about motivation, approach, fault tolerance and the first >> phase implementation. >> >> > >> >> > I think the new title "Flink Application Mode" makes a lot senses to >> me. Especially for the >> >> > containerized environment, the cluster deploy option will be very >> useful. >> >> > >> >> > Just one concern, how do we introduce this new application mode to >> our users? >> >> > Each user program(i.e. `main()`) is an application. Currently, we >> intend to only support one >> >> > `execute()`. So what's the difference between per-job and >> application mode? >> >> > >> >> > For per-job, user `main()` is always executed on client side. And >> For application mode, user >> >> > `main()` could be executed on client or master side(configured via >> cli option). >> >> > Right? We need to have a clear concept. Otherwise, the users will be >> more and more confusing. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Best, >> >> > Yang >> >> > >> >> > Kostas Kloudas <kklou...@gmail.com> 于2020年3月2日周一 下午5:58写道： >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> >> >> I update >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-85+Flink+Application+Mode >> >> >> based on the discussion we had here: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ji72s3FD9DYUyGuKnJoO4ApzV-nSsZa0-bceGXW7Ocw/edit# >> >> >> >> >> >> Please let me know what you think and please keep the discussion in >> the ML :) >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for starting the discussion and I hope that soon we will be >> >> >> able to vote on the FLIP. >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Kostas >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 3:40 AM Yang Wang <danrtsey...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Hi all, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thanks a lot for the feedback from @Kostas Kloudas. Your all >> concerns are >> >> >> > on point. The FLIP-85 is mainly >> >> >> > focused on supporting cluster mode for per-job. Since it is more >> urgent and >> >> >> > have much more use >> >> >> > cases both in Yarn and Kubernetes deployment. For session >> cluster, we could >> >> >> > have more discussion >> >> >> > in a new thread later. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > #1, How to download the user jars and dependencies for per-job in >> cluster >> >> >> > mode? >> >> >> > For Yarn, we could register the user jars and dependencies as >> >> >> > LocalResource. They will be distributed >> >> >> > by Yarn. And once the JobManager and TaskManager launched, the >> jars are >> >> >> > already exists. >> >> >> > For Standalone per-job and K8s, we expect that the user jars >> >> >> > and dependencies are built into the image. >> >> >> > Or the InitContainer could be used for downloading. It is natively >> >> >> > distributed and we will not have bottleneck. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > #2, Job graph recovery >> >> >> > We could have an optimization to store job graph on the DFS. >> However, i >> >> >> > suggest building a new jobgraph >> >> >> > from the configuration is the default option. Since we will not >> always have >> >> >> > a DFS store when deploying a >> >> >> > Flink per-job cluster. Of course, we assume that using the same >> >> >> > configuration(e.g. job_id, user_jar, main_class, >> >> >> > main_args, parallelism, savepoint_settings, etc.) will get a same >> job >> >> >> > graph. I think the standalone per-job >> >> >> > already has the similar behavior. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > #3, What happens with jobs that have multiple execute calls? >> >> >> > Currently, it is really a problem. Even we use a local client on >> Flink >> >> >> > master side, it will have different behavior with >> >> >> > client mode. For client mode, if we execute multiple times, then >> we will >> >> >> > deploy multiple Flink clusters for each execute. >> >> >> > I am not pretty sure whether it is reasonable. However, i still >> think using >> >> >> > the local client is a good choice. We could >> >> >> > continue the discussion in a new thread. @Zili Chen < >> wander4...@gmail.com> Do >> >> >> > you want to drive this? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Best, >> >> >> > Yang >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Peter Huang <huangzhenqiu0...@gmail.com> 于2020年1月16日周四 上午1:55写道： >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > Hi Kostas, >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Thanks for this feedback. I can't agree more about the opinion. >> The >> >> >> > > cluster mode should be added >> >> >> > > first in per job cluster. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > 1) For job cluster implementation >> >> >> > > 1. Job graph recovery from configuration or store as static job >> graph as >> >> >> > > session cluster. I think the static one will be better for less >> recovery >> >> >> > > time. >> >> >> > > Let me update the doc for details. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > 2. For job execute multiple times, I think @Zili Chen >> >> >> > > <wander4...@gmail.com> has proposed the local client solution >> that can >> >> >> > > the run program actually in the cluster entry point. We can put >> the >> >> >> > > implementation in the second stage, >> >> >> > > or even a new FLIP for further discussion. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > 2) For session cluster implementation >> >> >> > > We can disable the cluster mode for the session cluster in the >> first >> >> >> > > stage. I agree the jar downloading will be a painful thing. >> >> >> > > We can consider about PoC and performance evaluation first. If >> the end to >> >> >> > > end experience is good enough, then we can consider >> >> >> > > proceeding with the solution. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Looking forward to more opinions from @Yang Wang < >> danrtsey...@gmail.com> @Zili >> >> >> > > Chen <wander4...@gmail.com> @Dian Fu <dian0511...@gmail.com>. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Best Regards >> >> >> > > Peter Huang >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 7:50 AM Kostas Kloudas < >> kklou...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> Hi all, >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> I am writing here as the discussion on the Google Doc seems to >> be a >> >> >> > >> bit difficult to follow. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> I think that in order to be able to make progress, it would be >> helpful >> >> >> > >> to focus on per-job mode for now. >> >> >> > >> The reason is that: >> >> >> > >> 1) making the (unique) JobSubmitHandler responsible for >> creating the >> >> >> > >> jobgraphs, >> >> >> > >> which includes downloading dependencies, is not an optimal >> solution >> >> >> > >> 2) even if we put the responsibility on the JobMaster, >> currently each >> >> >> > >> job has its own >> >> >> > >> JobMaster but they all run on the same process, so we have >> again a >> >> >> > >> single entity. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> Of course after this is done, and if we feel comfortable with >> the >> >> >> > >> solution, then we can go to the session mode. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> A second comment has to do with fault-tolerance in the per-job, >> >> >> > >> cluster-deploy mode. >> >> >> > >> In the document, it is suggested that upon recovery, the >> JobMaster of >> >> >> > >> each job re-creates the JobGraph. >> >> >> > >> I am just wondering if it is better to create and store the >> jobGraph >> >> >> > >> upon submission and only fetch it >> >> >> > >> upon recovery so that we have a static jobGraph. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> Finally, I have a question which is what happens with jobs >> that have >> >> >> > >> multiple execute calls? >> >> >> > >> The semantics seem to change compared to the current >> behaviour, right? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> Cheers, >> >> >> > >> Kostas >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 8:05 PM tison <wander4...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > not always, Yang Wang is also not yet a committer but he can >> join the >> >> >> > >> > channel. I cannot find the id by clicking “Add new member in >> channel” so >> >> >> > >> > come to you and ask for try out the link. Possibly I will >> find other >> >> >> > >> ways >> >> >> > >> > but the original purpose is that the slack channel is a >> public area we >> >> >> > >> > discuss about developing... >> >> >> > >> > Best, >> >> >> > >> > tison. >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > Peter Huang <huangzhenqiu0...@gmail.com> 于2020年1月9日周四 >> 上午2:44写道： >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > Hi Tison, >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > I am not the committer of Flink yet. I think I can't join >> it also. >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > Best Regards >> >> >> > >> > > Peter Huang >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:39 AM tison <wander4...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Hi Peter, >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Could you try out this link? >> >> >> > >> > > https://the-asf.slack.com/messages/CNA3ADZPH >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Best, >> >> >> > >> > > > tison. >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Peter Huang <huangzhenqiu0...@gmail.com> 于2020年1月9日周四 >> 上午1:22写道： >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > Hi Tison, >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > I can't join the group with shared link. Would you >> please add me >> >> >> > >> into >> >> >> > >> > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > group? My slack account is huangzhenqiu0825. >> >> >> > >> > > > > Thank you in advance. >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > Best Regards >> >> >> > >> > > > > Peter Huang >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:02 AM tison < >> wander4...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > Hi Peter, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > As described above, this effort should get attention >> from people >> >> >> > >> > > > > developing >> >> >> > >> > > > > > FLIP-73 a.k.a. Executor abstractions. I recommend >> you to join >> >> >> > >> the >> >> >> > >> > > > public >> >> >> > >> > > > > > slack channel[1] for Flink Client API Enhancement >> and you can >> >> >> > >> try to >> >> >> > >> > > > > share >> >> >> > >> > > > > > you detailed thoughts there. It possibly gets more >> concrete >> >> >> > >> > > attentions. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > Best, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > tison. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > [1] >> >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> https://slack.com/share/IS21SJ75H/Rk8HhUly9FuEHb7oGwBZ33uL/enQtODg2MDYwNjE5MTg3LTA2MjIzNDc1M2ZjZDVlMjdlZjk1M2RkYmJhNjAwMTk2ZDZkODQ4NmY5YmI4OGRhNWJkYTViMTM1NzlmMzc4OWM >> >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > Peter Huang <huangzhenqiu0...@gmail.com> >> 于2020年1月7日周二 上午5:09写道： >> >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > Dear All, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > Happy new year! According to existing feedback >> from the >> >> >> > >> community, >> >> >> > >> > > we >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > revised the doc with the consideration of session >> cluster >> >> >> > >> support, >> >> >> > >> > > > and >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > concrete interface changes needed and execution >> plan. Please >> >> >> > >> take >> >> >> > >> > > one >> >> >> > >> > > > > > more >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > round of review at your most convenient time. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aAwVjdZByA-0CHbgv16Me-vjaaDMCfhX7TzVVTuifYM/edit# >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > Best Regards >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > Peter Huang >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:29 AM Peter Huang < >> >> >> > >> > > > > huangzhenqiu0...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > wrote: >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > Hi Dian, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > Thanks for giving us valuable feedbacks. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > 1) It's better to have a whole design for this >> feature >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > For the suggestion of enabling the cluster mode >> also session >> >> >> > >> > > > > cluster, I >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > think Flink already supported it. >> WebSubmissionExtension >> >> >> > >> already >> >> >> > >> > > > > allows >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > users to start a job with the specified jar by >> using web UI. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > But we need to enable the feature from CLI for >> both local >> >> >> > >> jar, >> >> >> > >> > > > remote >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > jar. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > I will align with Yang Wang first about the >> details and >> >> >> > >> update >> >> >> > >> > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > design >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > doc. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > 2) It's better to consider the convenience for >> users, such >> >> >> > >> as >> >> >> > >> > > > > debugging >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > I am wondering whether we can store the >> exception in >> >> >> > >> jobgragh >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > generation in application master. As no >> streaming graph can >> >> >> > >> be >> >> >> > >> > > > > > scheduled >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > in >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > this case, there will be no more TM will be >> requested from >> >> >> > >> > > FlinkRM. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > If the AM is still running, users can still >> query it from >> >> >> > >> CLI. As >> >> >> > >> > > > it >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > requires more change, we can get some feedback >> from < >> >> >> > >> > > > > > aljos...@apache.org >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > and @zjf...@gmail.com <zjf...@gmail.com>. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > 3) It's better to consider the impact to the >> stability of >> >> >> > >> the >> >> >> > >> > > > cluster >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > I agree with Yang Wang's opinion. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > Best Regards >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > Peter Huang >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 9:44 PM Dian Fu < >> >> >> > >> dian0511...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > >> > > > > wrote: >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> Hi all, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> Sorry to jump into this discussion. Thanks >> everyone for the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > discussion. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> I'm very interested in this topic although I'm >> not an >> >> >> > >> expert in >> >> >> > >> > > > this >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > part. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> So I'm glad to share my thoughts as following: >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> 1) It's better to have a whole design for this >> feature >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> As we know, there are two deployment modes: >> per-job mode >> >> >> > >> and >> >> >> > >> > > > session >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> mode. I'm wondering which mode really needs >> this feature. >> >> >> > >> As the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > design >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > doc >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> mentioned, per-job mode is more used for >> streaming jobs and >> >> >> > >> > > > session >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > mode is >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> usually used for batch jobs(Of course, the job >> types and >> >> >> > >> the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > deployment >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> modes are orthogonal). Usually streaming job is >> only >> >> >> > >> needed to >> >> >> > >> > > be >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > submitted >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> once and it will run for days or weeks, while >> batch jobs >> >> >> > >> will be >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > submitted >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> more frequently compared with streaming jobs. >> This means >> >> >> > >> that >> >> >> > >> > > > maybe >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > session >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> mode also needs this feature. However, if we >> support this >> >> >> > >> > > feature >> >> >> > >> > > > in >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> session mode, the application master will >> become the new >> >> >> > >> > > > centralized >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> service(which should be solved). So in this >> case, it's >> >> >> > >> better to >> >> >> > >> > > > > have >> >> >> > >> > > > > > a >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> complete design for both per-job mode and >> session mode. >> >> >> > >> > > > Furthermore, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > even >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> if we can do it phase by phase, we need to have >> a whole >> >> >> > >> picture >> >> >> > >> > > of >> >> >> > >> > > > > how >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > it >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> works in both per-job mode and session mode. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> 2) It's better to consider the convenience for >> users, such >> >> >> > >> as >> >> >> > >> > > > > > debugging >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> After we finish this feature, the job graph >> will be >> >> >> > >> compiled in >> >> >> > >> > > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> application master, which means that users >> cannot easily >> >> >> > >> get the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > exception >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> message synchorousely in the job client if >> there are >> >> >> > >> problems >> >> >> > >> > > > during >> >> >> > >> > > > > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> job graph compiling (especially for platform >> users), such >> >> >> > >> as the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > resource >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> path is incorrect, the user program itself has >> some >> >> >> > >> problems, >> >> >> > >> > > etc. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > What >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > I'm >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> thinking is that maybe we should throw the >> exceptions as >> >> >> > >> early >> >> >> > >> > > as >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > possible >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> (during job submission stage). >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> 3) It's better to consider the impact to the >> stability of >> >> >> > >> the >> >> >> > >> > > > > cluster >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> If we perform the compiling in the application >> master, we >> >> >> > >> should >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > consider >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> the impact of the compiling errors. Although >> YARN could >> >> >> > >> resume >> >> >> > >> > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> application master in case of failures, but in >> some case >> >> >> > >> the >> >> >> > >> > > > > compiling >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> failure may be a waste of cluster resource and >> may impact >> >> >> > >> the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > stability >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> cluster and the other jobs in the cluster, such >> as the >> >> >> > >> resource >> >> >> > >> > > > path >> >> >> > >> > > > > > is >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> incorrect, the user program itself has some >> problems(in >> >> >> > >> this >> >> >> > >> > > case, >> >> >> > >> > > > > job >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> failover cannot solve this kind of problems) >> etc. In the >> >> >> > >> current >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> implemention, the compiling errors are handled >> in the >> >> >> > >> client >> >> >> > >> > > side >> >> >> > >> > > > > and >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > there >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> is no impact to the cluster at all. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> Regarding to 1), it's clearly pointed in the >> design doc >> >> >> > >> that >> >> >> > >> > > only >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > per-job >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> mode will be supported. However, I think it's >> better to >> >> >> > >> also >> >> >> > >> > > > > consider >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> session mode in the design doc. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> Regarding to 2) and 3), I have not seen related >> sections >> >> >> > >> in the >> >> >> > >> > > > > design >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> doc. It will be good if we can cover them in >> the design >> >> >> > >> doc. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> Feel free to correct me If there is anything I >> >> >> > >> misunderstand. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> Regards, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> Dian >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > 在 2019年12月27日，上午3:13，Peter Huang < >> >> >> > >> huangzhenqiu0...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > >> > > > 写道： >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > Hi Yang, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > I can't agree more. The effort definitely >> needs to align >> >> >> > >> with >> >> >> > >> > > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > final >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > goal of FLIP-73. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > I am thinking about whether we can achieve >> the goal with >> >> >> > >> two >> >> >> > >> > > > > phases. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > 1) Phase I >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > As the CLiFrontend will not be depreciated >> soon. We can >> >> >> > >> still >> >> >> > >> > > > use >> >> >> > >> > > > > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > deployMode flag there, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > pass the program info through Flink >> configuration, use >> >> >> > >> the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > ClassPathJobGraphRetriever >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > to generate the job graph in >> ClusterEntrypoints of yarn >> >> >> > >> and >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > Kubernetes. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > 2) Phase II >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > In AbstractJobClusterExecutor, the job graph >> is >> >> >> > >> generated in >> >> >> > >> > > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> execute >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > function. We can still >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > use the deployMode in it. With deployMode = >> cluster, the >> >> >> > >> > > execute >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> function >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > only starts the cluster. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > When >> {Yarn/Kuberneates}PerJobClusterEntrypoint starts, >> >> >> > >> It will >> >> >> > >> > > > > start >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > dispatch first, then we can use >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > a ClusterEnvironment similar to >> ContextEnvironment to >> >> >> > >> submit >> >> >> > >> > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > job >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> with >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > jobName the local >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > dispatcher. For the details, we need more >> investigation. >> >> >> > >> Let's >> >> >> > >> > > > > wait >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > for @Aljoscha >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> @Till Rohrmann >> < >> >> >> > >> > > > > trohrm...@apache.org >> >> >> > >> > > > > > >'s >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > feedback after the holiday season. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > Thank you in advance. Merry Chrismas and >> Happy New >> >> >> > >> Year!!! >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > Best Regards >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > Peter Huang >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 1:08 AM Yang Wang < >> >> >> > >> > > > danrtsey...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> I think we need to reconsider tison's >> suggestion >> >> >> > >> seriously. >> >> >> > >> > > > After >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> FLIP-73, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> the deployJobCluster has >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> beenmoved into `JobClusterExecutor#execute`. >> It should >> >> >> > >> not be >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > perceived >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> for `CliFrontend`. That >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> means the user program will *ALWAYS* be >> executed on >> >> >> > >> client >> >> >> > >> > > > side. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > This >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> is >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> the by design behavior. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> So, we could not just add `if(client mode) >> .. else >> >> >> > >> if(cluster >> >> >> > >> > > > > mode) >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> ...` >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> codes in `CliFrontend` to bypass >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> the executor. We need to find a clean way to >> decouple >> >> >> > >> > > executing >> >> >> > >> > > > > > user >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> program and deploying per-job >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> cluster. Based on this, we could support to >> execute user >> >> >> > >> > > > program >> >> >> > >> > > > > on >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> client >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> or master side. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> Maybe Aljoscha and Jeff could give some good >> >> >> > >> suggestions. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> Best, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> Yang >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> Peter Huang <huangzhenqiu0...@gmail.com> >> 于2019年12月25日周三 >> >> >> > >> > > > > 上午4:03写道： >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> Hi Jingjing, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> The improvement proposed is a deployment >> option for >> >> >> > >> CLI. For >> >> >> > >> > > > SQL >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > based >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> Flink application, It is more convenient to >> use the >> >> >> > >> existing >> >> >> > >> > > > > model >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > in >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> SqlClient in which >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> the job graph is generated within >> SqlClient. After >> >> >> > >> adding >> >> >> > >> > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > delayed >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> job >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> graph generation, I think there is no >> change is needed >> >> >> > >> for >> >> >> > >> > > > your >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > side. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> Best Regards >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> Peter Huang >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 6:01 AM jingjing >> bai < >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> baijingjing7...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> hi peter: >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> we had extension SqlClent to support >> sql job >> >> >> > >> submit in >> >> >> > >> > > web >> >> >> > >> > > > > > base >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > on >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> flink 1.9. we support submit to yarn on >> per job >> >> >> > >> mode too. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> in this case, the job graph generated >> on client >> >> >> > >> side >> >> >> > >> > > . I >> >> >> > >> > > > > > think >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> this >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> discuss Mainly to improve api programme. >> but in my >> >> >> > >> case , >> >> >> > >> > > > > there >> >> >> > >> > > > > > is >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> no >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> jar to upload but only a sql string . >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> do u had more suggestion to improve for >> sql mode >> >> >> > >> or it >> >> >> > >> > > is >> >> >> > >> > > > > > only a >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> switch for api programme？ >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> best >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> bai jj >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> Yang Wang <danrtsey...@gmail.com> >> 于2019年12月18日周三 >> >> >> > >> 下午7:21写道： >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> I just want to revive this discussion. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> Recently, i am thinking about how to >> natively run >> >> >> > >> flink >> >> >> > >> > > > > per-job >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> cluster on >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> Kubernetes. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> The per-job mode on Kubernetes is very >> different >> >> >> > >> from on >> >> >> > >> > > > Yarn. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > And >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> we >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> will >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> have >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> the same deployment requirements to the >> client and >> >> >> > >> entry >> >> >> > >> > > > > point. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> 1. Flink client not always need a local >> jar to start >> >> >> > >> a >> >> >> > >> > > Flink >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > per-job >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> cluster. We could >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> support multiple schemas. For example, >> >> >> > >> > > > file:///path/of/my.jar >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > means >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> a >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> jar >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> located >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> at client side, >> >> >> > >> hdfs://myhdfs/user/myname/flink/my.jar >> >> >> > >> > > > means a >> >> >> > >> > > > > > jar >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> located >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> at >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> remote hdfs, >> local:///path/in/image/my.jar means a >> >> >> > >> jar >> >> >> > >> > > > located >> >> >> > >> > > > > > at >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> jobmanager side. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> 2. Support running user program on master >> side. This >> >> >> > >> also >> >> >> > >> > > > > means >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> entry >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> point >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> will generate the job graph on master >> side. We could >> >> >> > >> use >> >> >> > >> > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> ClasspathJobGraphRetriever >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> or start a local Flink client to achieve >> this >> >> >> > >> purpose. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> cc tison, Aljoscha & Kostas Do you think >> this is the >> >> >> > >> right >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> direction we >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> need to work? >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> tison <wander4...@gmail.com> >> 于2019年12月12日周四 >> >> >> > >> 下午4:48写道： >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> A quick idea is that we separate the >> deployment >> >> >> > >> from user >> >> >> > >> > > > > > program >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> that >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> it >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> has always been done >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> outside the program. On user program >> executed there >> >> >> > >> is >> >> >> > >> > > > > always a >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> ClusterClient that communicates with >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> an existing cluster, remote or local. It >> will be >> >> >> > >> another >> >> >> > >> > > > > thread >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > so >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> just >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> for >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> your information. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> Best, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> tison. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> tison <wander4...@gmail.com> >> 于2019年12月12日周四 >> >> >> > >> 下午4:40写道： >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> Hi Peter, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> Another concern I realized recently is >> that with >> >> >> > >> current >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > Executors >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> abstraction(FLIP-73) >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> I'm afraid that user program is >> designed to ALWAYS >> >> >> > >> run >> >> >> > >> > > on >> >> >> > >> > > > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> client >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> side. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> Specifically, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> we deploy the job in executor when >> env.execute >> >> >> > >> called. >> >> >> > >> > > > This >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> abstraction >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> possibly prevents >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> Flink runs user program on the cluster >> side. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> For your proposal, in this case we >> already >> >> >> > >> compiled the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > program >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> and >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> run >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> on >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> the client side, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> even we deploy a cluster and retrieve >> job graph >> >> >> > >> from >> >> >> > >> > > > program >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> metadata, it >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> doesn't make >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> many sense. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> cc Aljoscha & Kostas what do you think >> about this >> >> >> > >> > > > > constraint? >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> Best, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> tison. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> Peter Huang <huangzhenqiu0...@gmail.com >> > >> >> >> > >> 于2019年12月10日周二 >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> 下午12:45写道： >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Hi Tison, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Yes, you are right. I think I made the >> wrong >> >> >> > >> argument >> >> >> > >> > > in >> >> >> > >> > > > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > doc. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Basically, the packaging jar problem >> is only for >> >> >> > >> > > platform >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > users. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> In >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> our >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> internal deploy service, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> we further optimized the deployment >> latency by >> >> >> > >> letting >> >> >> > >> > > > > users >> >> >> > >> > > > > > to >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> packaging >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> flink-runtime together with the uber >> jar, so that >> >> >> > >> we >> >> >> > >> > > > don't >> >> >> > >> > > > > > need >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> to >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> consider >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> multiple flink version >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> support for now. In the session client >> mode, as >> >> >> > >> Flink >> >> >> > >> > > > libs >> >> >> > >> > > > > > will >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> be >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> shipped >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> anyway as local resources of yarn. >> Users actually >> >> >> > >> don't >> >> >> > >> > > > > need >> >> >> > >> > > > > > to >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> package >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> those libs into job jar. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Best Regards >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Peter Huang >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 8:35 PM tison < >> >> >> > >> > > > wander4...@gmail.com >> >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> 3. What do you mean about the >> package? Do users >> >> >> > >> need >> >> >> > >> > > to >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> compile >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> their >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> jars >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> inlcuding flink-clients, >> flink-optimizer, >> >> >> > >> flink-table >> >> >> > >> > > > > codes? >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> The answer should be no because they >> exist in >> >> >> > >> system >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > classpath. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Best, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> tison. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Yang Wang <danrtsey...@gmail.com> >> 于2019年12月10日周二 >> >> >> > >> > > > > 下午12:18写道： >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Peter, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for starting this >> discussion. I >> >> >> > >> think >> >> >> > >> > > this >> >> >> > >> > > > > is >> >> >> > >> > > > > > a >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> very >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> useful >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> feature. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Not only for Yarn, i am focused on >> flink on >> >> >> > >> > > Kubernetes >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> integration >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> and >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> come >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> across the same >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> problem. I do not want the job graph >> generated >> >> >> > >> on >> >> >> > >> > > > client >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > side. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Instead, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> user jars are built in >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> a user-defined image. When the job >> manager >> >> >> > >> launched, >> >> >> > >> > > we >> >> >> > >> > > > > > just >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> need to >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> generate the job graph >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> based on local user jars. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> I have some small suggestion about >> this. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> 1. `ProgramJobGraphRetriever` is >> very similar to >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> `ClasspathJobGraphRetriever`, the >> differences >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> are the former needs >> `ProgramMetadata` and the >> >> >> > >> latter >> >> >> > >> > > > > needs >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> some >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> arguments. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Is it possible to >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> have an unified `JobGraphRetriever` >> to support >> >> >> > >> both? >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> 2. Is it possible to not use a local >> user jar to >> >> >> > >> > > start >> >> >> > >> > > > a >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> per-job >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> cluster? >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> In your case, the user jars has >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> existed on hdfs already and we do >> need to >> >> >> > >> download >> >> >> > >> > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > jars >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > to >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> deployer >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> service. Currently, we >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> always need a local user jar to >> start a flink >> >> >> > >> > > cluster. >> >> >> > >> > > > It >> >> >> > >> > > > > > is >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> be >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> great >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> if >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> we >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> could support remote user jars. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> In the implementation, we assume >> users package >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> flink-clients, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> flink-optimizer, flink-table >> together within >> >> >> > >> the job >> >> >> > >> > > > jar. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> Otherwise, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> job graph generation within >> >> >> > >> JobClusterEntryPoint will >> >> >> > >> > > > > fail. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> 3. What do you mean about the >> package? Do users >> >> >> > >> need >> >> >> > >> > > to >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> compile >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> their >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> jars >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> inlcuding flink-clients, >> flink-optimizer, >> >> >> > >> flink-table >> >> >> > >> > > > > > codes? >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Yang >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Peter Huang < >> huangzhenqiu0...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > >> > > > 于2019年12月10日周二 >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> 上午2:37写道： >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear All, >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Recently, the Flink community >> starts to >> >> >> > >> improve the >> >> >> > >> > > > yarn >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> cluster >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> descriptor >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> to make job jar and config files >> configurable >> >> >> > >> from >> >> >> > >> > > > CLI. >> >> >> > >> > > > > It >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> improves >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> flexibility of Flink deployment >> Yarn Per Job >> >> >> > >> Mode. >> >> >> > >> > > > For >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> platform >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> users >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> who >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> manage tens of hundreds of >> streaming pipelines >> >> >> > >> for >> >> >> > >> > > the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > whole >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> org >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> or >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> company, we found the job graph >> generation in >> >> >> > >> > > > > client-side >> >> >> > >> > > > > > is >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> another >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> pinpoint. Thus, we want to propose a >> >> >> > >> configurable >> >> >> > >> > > > > feature >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> for >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> FlinkYarnSessionCli. The feature >> can allow >> >> >> > >> users to >> >> >> > >> > > > > choose >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> the >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> job >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> graph >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> generation in Flink >> ClusterEntryPoint so that >> >> >> > >> the >> >> >> > >> > > job >> >> >> > >> > > > > jar >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> doesn't >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> need >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> to >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> be locally for the job graph >> generation. The >> >> >> > >> > > proposal >> >> >> > >> > > > is >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> organized >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> as a >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> FLIP >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-85+Delayed+JobGraph+Generation >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> . >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Any questions and suggestions are >> welcomed. >> >> >> > >> Thank >> >> >> > >> > > you >> >> >> > >> > > > in >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> advance. >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter Huang >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >
