> > A quick question, does network memory treated as managed memory now? Or in > the future? > No, network memory is independent from managed memory ATM. And I'm not aware of any plan to combine these two.
Any insights there? Thank you~ Xintong Song On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 4:35 PM Kurt Young <ykt...@gmail.com> wrote: > A quick question, does network memory treated as managed memory now? Or in > the future? > > Best, > Kurt > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 5:32 PM Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi devs, > > > > I'd like to bring the discussion over FLIP-141[1], which proposes how > > managed memory should be shared by various use cases within a slot. This > is > > an extension to FLIP-53[2], where we assumed that RocksDB state backend > and > > batch operators are the only use cases of managed memory for streaming > and > > batch jobs respectively, which is no longer true with the introduction of > > Python UDFs. > > > > Please notice that we have not reached consensus between two different > > designs. The major part of this FLIP describes one of the candidates, > while > > the alternative is discussed in the section "Rejected Alternatives". We > are > > hoping to borrow intelligence from the community to help us resolve the > > disagreement. > > > > Any feedback would be appreciated. > > > > Thank you~ > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > [1] > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-141%3A+Intra-Slot+Managed+Memory+Sharing#FLIP141:IntraSlotManagedMemorySharing-compatibility > > > > [2] > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-53%3A+Fine+Grained+Operator+Resource+Management > > >
