Voting period is now over even with the roadmap changes (forgot to close on Friday because of all the Coronavirus chaos).
We have 4 binding votes (Thomas, Yu, Piotr, Zhijiang) and no objections, so FLIP-76 passed. Thank you very much for your feedback. On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 11:08 AM Yu Li <car...@gmail.com> wrote: > +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 > > > > > > > > >
