For the option name, maybe: *flink.main* or *flink.managed* (this may be a bit confusing for existing users as we said that the overall managed memory is managed by Flink)
On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 9:56 AM Andrey Zagrebin <azagre...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 > > Best, > Andrey > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:16 PM Yu Li <car...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Best Regards, >> Yu >> >> >> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 17:03, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > We just need to make sure to find a good name before the release but >> > shouldn't block any work on this. >> > >> > Aljoscha >> > >> > On 08.09.20 07:59, Xintong Song wrote: >> > > Thanks for the vote, @Jincheng. >> > > >> > > >> > > Concerning the namings, the original idea was, as you suggested, to >> have >> > > separate configuration names for batch and rocksdb while only one of >> them >> > > will take effect at a time. >> > > >> > > >> > > It was then in the discussion thread [1] that @Stepahn suggested to >> > combine >> > > these two. >> > > >> > >> We never have batch algos and RocksDB mixed, having this as >> > separate >> > >> options is confusing as it suggests this can be combined >> arbitrarily. I >> > >> also think that a slim possibility that we may ever combine this in >> the >> > >> future is not enough reason to make it more complex/confusing. >> > >> >> > > >> > > This suggestion was also supported by others in the discussion thread. >> > > That's why we are trying to come up with a name that covers both batch >> > and >> > > rocksdb memory consumers. >> > > >> > > >> > > Thank you~ >> > > >> > > Xintong Song >> > > >> > > >> > > [1] >> > > >> > >> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-141-Intra-Slot-Managed-Memory-Sharing-tp44146p44253.html >> > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:37 PM jincheng sun <sunjincheng...@gmail.com >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> +1 for the proposal! >> > >> >> > >> Regarding the name of `BATCH_OP/ROCKSDB`, we can reserve the >> > configuration >> > >> names for batch and rocksdb respectively, ` batch_ OP` for batch, >> > "ROCKSDB" >> > >> for roockdb. and the default value as follows: >> > >> >> > >> { >> > >> BATCH_OP: 70, >> > >> ROCKSDB : 70, >> > >> PYTHON : 30 >> > >> } >> > >> >> > >> Only one of `BATCH_ OP` and `ROCKSDB` will work. What do you think? >> > >> >> > >> Best, >> > >> Jincheng >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> 于2020年9月7日周一 下午1:46写道： >> > >> >> > >>> Thanks for the votes. >> > >>> >> > >>> Concerning the name for batch/RocksDB memory consumer, how about >> > >> "execution >> > >>> memory"? >> > >>> We can further explain in docs and config option description that >> this >> > is >> > >>> used for job execution, which is currently dedicated to rocksdb in >> > >>> streaming and batch algorithms in batch. >> > >>> >> > >>> Thank you~ >> > >>> >> > >>> Xintong Song >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 11:43 AM Yangze Guo <karma...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>>> +1 >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Best, >> > >>>> Yangze Guo >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 10:54 AM Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> +1 >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Thanks, >> > >>>>> Zhu >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Dian Fu <dian0511...@gmail.com> 于2020年9月7日周一 上午10:34写道： >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>>> +1 >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> 在 2020年9月3日，下午8:46，Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> 写道： >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> Hi Xintong, >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> thanks for starting the vote. >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> +1 for the proposal given that we find a proper name for the >> > >>>>>>> different memory consumers (specifically the batch/RocksDB >> > >>> consumer) >> > >>>> and >> > >>>>>>> their corresponding weights. >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> Cheers, >> > >>>>>>> Till >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 12:43 PM Xintong Song < >> > >>> tonysong...@gmail.com> >> > >>>>>> wrote: >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> Hi devs, >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> I'd like to start a voting thread on FLIP-141[1], which >> proposes >> > >>> how >> > >>>>>>>> managed memory should be shared by various use cases within a >> > >>> slot. >> > >>>> The >> > >>>>>>>> proposal has been discussed in [2]. >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72h + weekends. I'll try to >> > >>>> close it >> > >>>>>> on >> > >>>>>>>> September 8, unless there is an objection or not enough votes. >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> Thank you~ >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> Xintong Song >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> [1] >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-141%3A+Intra-Slot+Managed+Memory+Sharing#FLIP141:IntraSlotManagedMemorySharing-compatibility >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> [2] >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-141-Intra-Slot-Managed-Memory-Sharing-td44146.html >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >> >
