Thanks everyone, I'm closing this vote now in a separate email.
Concerning the naming, I will use DATAPROC, as @Stephan suggested in the discussion thread [1], for now. If there are any other opinions, feel free to reach out to me anytime before the release. Thank you~ Xintong Song [1] http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-141-Intra-Slot-Managed-Memory-Sharing-tp44146p44533.html On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:02 PM Andrey Zagrebin <azagre...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
