+1 (binding) The updated FLIP doc LGTM. Thanks for addressing the comments Arvid and Roman.
Best Regards, Yu On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 03:48, Arvid Heise <ar...@ververica.com> wrote: > I added a roadmap section to the FLIP as suggested by Yu and Roman. > > Unless someone objects, I'd still consider the voting period to end > tomorrow. For me, the roadmap is only a clarification of already written > and discussed points. > > We already have enough binding votes, but there may be concerns popping up > until tomorrow. > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:00 PM Yun Gao <yungao...@aliyun.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > I think the PoC result has shown the effect on reducing checkpoint > > time when back-pressure occurs, and I totally agree with that the feature > > could be implemented in steps. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From:Roman Khachatryan <ro...@data-artisans.com> > > Send Time:2020 Mar. 12 (Thu.) 01:33 > > To:dev <dev@flink.apache.org>; Zhijiang <wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> > > Subject:Re: [VOTE] [FLIP-76] Unaligned checkpoints > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > Regarding Yu's suggestion about *Roadmap* or *Future Work* section, I > think > > it's a good idea. > > Currently, some MVP limitations are mentioned at the end of the document, > > so we can extract and expand it. > > As for the recovery speed it's not a priority currently, but we could > also > > mention it in this section. > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 4:11 PM Zhijiang <wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com > > .invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 (binding). > > > > > > As for David's concern of smaller buffers after recovery, I ever had a > > > draft design [1] to solve this issue. > > > You can take a look and leave comments if still have concerns. :) > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/16_MOQymzxrKvUHXh6QFr2AAXIKt_2vPUf8vzKy4H_tU/edit > > > > > > Best, > > > Zhijiang > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > From:Piotr Nowojski <pi...@ververica.com> > > > Send Time:2020 Mar. 11 (Wed.) 21:19 > > > To:dev <dev@flink.apache.org> > > > Subject:Re: [VOTE] [FLIP-76] Unaligned checkpoints > > > > > > +1 (binding). > > > > > > Piotrek > > > > > > > On 11 Mar 2020, at 09:19, David Anderson <da...@ververica.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 I like where this is headed. > > > > > > > > One question: during restore, it could happen that a new task manager > > is > > > > configured with fewer or smaller buffers than was previously the > case. > > > How > > > > will this be handled? > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:31 AM Arvid Heise <ar...@ververica.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Thomas, > > > >> > > > >> it's like you said. The first version will not support rescaling and > > > mostly > > > >> addresses the concerns about making little to no progress because of > > > >> frequent crashes. > > > >> > > > >> The main reason is that we cannot guarantee the ordering of > non-keyed > > > data > > > >> (and even keyed data in some weird cases) when rescaling currently. > We > > > have > > > >> a general concept to address that, which would also enable dynamic > > > >> rescaling in the future, but that would make the changes even bigger > > > and we > > > >> would not have any version ready for 1.11. > > > >> > > > >> The current plan, of course, is to continue improving unaligned > > > checkpoints > > > >> immediately after release, such that we have the full feature set > for > > > 1.12. > > > >> Potentially, unaligned checkpoints (with timeouts) would even become > > the > > > >> default option. > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:14 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> +1 > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks for putting this together, looking forward to the > experimental > > > >>> support in the next release. > > > >>> > > > >>> One clarification: since the MVP won't support rescaling, does it > > imply > > > >>> that savepoints will always use aligned checkpointing? If so, this > > > would > > > >>> still block the user from taking a savepoint and resume with > > increased > > > >>> parallelism to resolve a prolonged/permanent backpressure > condition? > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > >>> Thomas > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 6:33 AM Arvid Heise <ar...@ververica.com> > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi all, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I would like to start the vote for FLIP-76 [1], which is discussed > > and > > > >>>> reached a consensus in the discussion thread [2]. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The vote will be open until March. 13th (72h), unless there is an > > > >>> objection > > > >>>> or not enough votes. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > >>>> Arvid > > > >>>> > > > >>>> [1] > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-76%3A+Unaligned+Checkpoints > > > >>>> [2] > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-76-Unaligned-checkpoints-td33651.html > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Roman > > > > >
