Hi Konstantin, thanks for your feedback. >From what I understand, PUT should be idempotent. However, we have a *timeout* field in the request. This means that initiating the same request at two different times will lead to different resource status (timestamps of the items to be removed will be different).
Should we use PUT in this case? WDYT? Best, Lijie Konstantin Knauf <kna...@apache.org> 于2022年5月13日周五 17:20写道： > Hi Lijie, > > wouldn't the REST API-idiomatic way for an update/replace be a PUT on the > resource? > > PUT: http://{jm_rest_address:port}/blocklist/taskmanagers/{id} > > Best, > > Konstantin > > > > Am Fr., 13. Mai 2022 um 11:01 Uhr schrieb Lijie Wang < > wangdachui9...@gmail.com>: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I've had an offline discussion with Becket Qin and Zhu Zhu, and made the > > following changes on REST API: > > 1. To avoid ambiguity, *timeout* and *endTimestamp* can only choose one. > If > > both are specified, will return error. > > 2. If the specified item is already there, the *ADD* operation has two > > behaviors: *return error*(default value) or *merge/update*, and we add a > > flag to the request body to control it. You can find more details "Public > > Interface" section. > > > > If there is no more feedback, we will start the vote thread next week. > > > > Best, > > Lijie > > > > Lijie Wang <wangdachui9...@gmail.com> 于2022年5月10日周二 17:14写道： > > > > > Hi Becket Qin, > > > > > > Thanks for your suggestions. I have moved the description of > > > configurations, metrics and REST API into "Public Interface" section, > and > > > made a few updates according to your suggestion. And in this FLIP, > there > > > no public java Interfaces or pluggables that users need to implement by > > > themselves. > > > > > > Answers for you questions: > > > 1. Yes, there 2 block actions: MARK_BLOCKED and. > > > MARK_BLOCKED_AND_EVACUATE_TASKS (has renamed). Currently, block items > can > > > only be added through the REST API, so these 2 action are mentioned in > > the > > > REST API part (The REST API part has beed moved to public interface > now). > > > 2. I agree with you. I have changed the "Cause" field to String, and > > allow > > > users to specify it via REST API. > > > 3. Yes, it is useful to allow different timeouts. As mentioned above, > we > > > will introduce 2 fields : *timeout* and *endTimestamp* into the ADD > REST > > > API to specify when to remove the blocked item. These 2 fields are > > > optional, if neither is specified, it means that the blocked item is > > > permanent and will not be removed. If both are specified, the minimum > of > > > *currentTimestamp+tiemout *and* endTimestamp* will be used as the time > to > > > remove the blocked item. To keep the configurations more minimal, we > have > > > removed the *cluster.resource-blocklist.item.timeout* configuration > > > option. > > > 4. Yes, the block item will be overridden if the specified item already > > > exists. The ADD operation is *ADD or UPDATE*. > > > 5. Yes. On JM/RM side, all the blocklist information is maintained in > > > JMBlocklistHandler/RMBlocklistHandler. The blocklist handler(or > > abstracted > > > to other interfaces) will be propagated to different components. > > > > > > Best, > > > Lijie > > > > > > Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> 于2022年5月10日周二 11:26写道： > > > > > >> Hi Lijie, > > >> > > >> Thanks for updating the FLIP. It looks like the public interface > section > > >> did not fully reflect all the user sensible behavior and API. Can you > > put > > >> everything that users may be aware of there? That would include the > REST > > >> API, metrics, configurations, public java Interfaces or pluggables > that > > >> users may see or implement by themselves, as well as a brief summary > of > > >> the > > >> behavior of the public API. > > >> > > >> Besides that, I have a few questions: > > >> > > >> 1. According to the conversation in the discussion thread, it looks > like > > >> the BlockAction will have "MARK_BLOCKLISTED" and > > >> "MARK_BLOCKLISTED_AND_EVACUATE_TASKS". Is that the case? If so, can > you > > >> add > > >> that to the public interface as well? > > >> > > >> 2. At this point, the "Cause" field in the BlockingItem is a Throwable > > and > > >> is not reflected in the REST API. Should that be included in the query > > >> response? And should we change that field to be a String so users may > > >> specify the cause via the REST API when they block some nodes / TMs? > > >> > > >> 3. Would it be useful to allow users to have different timeouts for > > >> different blocked items? So while there is a default timeout, users > can > > >> also override it via the REST API when they block an entity. > > >> > > >> 4. Regarding the ADD operation, if the specified item is already > there, > > >> will the block item be overridden? For example, if the user wants to > > >> extend > > >> the timeout of a blocked item, can they just issue an ADD command > > again? > > >> > > >> 5. I am not quite familiar with the details of this, but is there a > > source > > >> of truth for the blocked list? I think it might be good to have a > single > > >> source of truth for the blocked list and just propagate that list to > > >> different components to take the action of actually blocking the > > resource. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > >> > > >> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 5:54 PM Lijie Wang <wangdachui9...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi everyone, > > >> > > > >> > Based on the discussion in the mailing list, I updated the FLIP doc, > > the > > >> > changes include: > > >> > 1. Changed the description of the motivation section to more clearly > > >> > describe the problem this FLIP is trying to solve. > > >> > 2. Only *Manually* is supported. > > >> > 3. Adopted some suggestions, such as *endTimestamp*. > > >> > > > >> > Best, > > >> > Lijie > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Roman Boyko <ro.v.bo...@gmail.com> 于2022年5月7日周六 19:25写道： > > >> > > > >> > > Hi Lijie! > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > *a) “Probably storing inside Zookeeper/Configmap might be > > >> helpfulhere.” > > >> > > Can you explain it in detail? I don't fully understand that. In > > >> > myopinion, > > >> > > non-active and active are the same, and no special treatment > > >> isrequired.* > > >> > > > > >> > > Sorry this was a misunderstanding from my side. I thought we were > > >> talking > > >> > > about the HA mode (but not about Active and Standalone > > >> ResourceManager). > > >> > > And the original question was - how to handle the blacklisted > nodes > > >> list > > >> > at > > >> > > the moment of leader change? Should we simply forget about them or > > >> try to > > >> > > pre-save that list on the remote storage? > > >> > > > > >> > > On Sat, 7 May 2022 at 10:51, Yang Wang <danrtsey...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks Lijie and ZhuZhu for the explanation. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I just overlooked the "MARK_BLOCKLISTED". For tasks level, it is > > >> indeed > > >> > > > some functionalities the external tools(e.g. kubectl taint) > could > > >> not > > >> > > > support. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Best, > > >> > > > Yang > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Lijie Wang <wangdachui9...@gmail.com> 于2022年5月6日周五 22:18写道： > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for your feedback, Jiangang and Martijn. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > @Jiangang > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > For auto-detecting, I wonder how to make the strategy and > > mark a > > >> > node > > >> > > > > blocked? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > In fact, we currently plan to not support auto-detection in > this > > >> > FLIP. > > >> > > > The > > >> > > > > part about auto-detection may be continued in a separate FLIP > in > > >> the > > >> > > > > future. Some guys have the same concerns as you, and the > > >> correctness > > >> > > and > > >> > > > > necessity of auto-detection may require further discussion in > > the > > >> > > future. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > In session mode, multi jobs can fail on the same bad node > and > > >> the > > >> > > node > > >> > > > > should be marked blocked. > > >> > > > > By design, the blocklist information will be shared among all > > jobs > > >> > in a > > >> > > > > cluster/session. The JM will sync blocklist information with > RM. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > @Martijn > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I agree with Yang Wang on this. > > >> > > > > As Zhu Zhu and I mentioned above, we think the > > >> MARK_BLOCKLISTED(Just > > >> > > > limits > > >> > > > > the load of the node and does not kill all the processes on > it) > > >> is > > >> > > also > > >> > > > > important, and we think that external systems (*yarn rmadmin > or > > >> > kubectl > > >> > > > > taint*) cannot support it. So we think it makes sense even > only > > >> > > > *manually*. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I also agree with Chesnay that magical mechanisms are indeed > > >> super > > >> > > hard > > >> > > > > to get right. > > >> > > > > Yes, as you see, Jiangang(and a few others) have the same > > concern. > > >> > > > > However, we currently plan to not support auto-detection in > this > > >> > FLIP, > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > > only *manually*. In addition, I'd like to say that the FLIP > > >> provides > > >> > a > > >> > > > > mechanism to support MARK_BLOCKLISTED and > > >> > > > > MARK_BLOCKLISTED_AND_EVACUATE_TASKS, > > >> > > > > the auto-detection may be done by external systems. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > Lijie > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Martijn Visser <mart...@ververica.com> 于2022年5月6日周五 19:04写道： > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we only support to block nodes manually, then I could > not > > >> see > > >> > > > > > the obvious advantages compared with current SRE's > > approach(via > > >> > *yarn > > >> > > > > > rmadmin or kubectl taint*). > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I agree with Yang Wang on this. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > To me this sounds yet again like one of those magical > > >> mechanisms > > >> > > > that > > >> > > > > > will rarely work just right. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I also agree with Chesnay that magical mechanisms are indeed > > >> super > > >> > > hard > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > > get right. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Martijn > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 12:03, Jiangang Liu < > > >> > liujiangangp...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks for the valuable design. The auto-detecting can > > decrease > > >> > > great > > >> > > > > work > > >> > > > > >> for us. We have implemented the similar feature in our > inner > > >> flink > > >> > > > > >> version. > > >> > > > > >> Below is something that I care about: > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> 1. For auto-detecting, I wonder how to make the strategy > > and > > >> > > mark a > > >> > > > > >> node > > >> > > > > >> blocked? Sometimes the blocked node is hard to be > > detected, > > >> for > > >> > > > > >> example, > > >> > > > > >> the upper node or the down node will be blocked when > > network > > >> > > > > >> unreachable. > > >> > > > > >> 2. I see that the strategy is made in JobMaster side. > How > > >> about > > >> > > > > >> implementing the similar logic in resource manager? In > > >> session > > >> > > > mode, > > >> > > > > >> multi > > >> > > > > >> jobs can fail on the same bad node and the node should > be > > >> > marked > > >> > > > > >> blocked. > > >> > > > > >> If the job makes the strategy, the node may be not > marked > > >> > blocked > > >> > > > if > > >> > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > >> fail times don't exceed the threshold. > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com> 于2022年5月5日周四 23:35写道： > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > Thank you for all your feedback! > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > Besides the answers from Lijie, I'd like to share some of > > my > > >> > > > thoughts: > > >> > > > > >> > 1. Whether to enable automatical blocklist > > >> > > > > >> > Generally speaking, it is not a goal of FLIP-224. > > >> > > > > >> > The automatical way should be something built upon the > > >> blocklist > > >> > > > > >> > mechanism and well decoupled. It was designed to be a > > >> > configurable > > >> > > > > >> > blocklist strategy, but I think we can further decouple > it > > by > > >> > > > > >> > introducing a abnormal node detector, as Becket > suggested, > > >> which > > >> > > > just > > >> > > > > >> > uses the blocklist mechanism once bad nodes are detected. > > >> > However, > > >> > > > it > > >> > > > > >> > should be a separate FLIP with further dev discussions > and > > >> > > feedback > > >> > > > > >> > from users. I also agree with Becket that different users > > >> have > > >> > > > > different > > >> > > > > >> > requirements, and we should listen to them. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > 2. Is it enough to just take away abnormal nodes > externally > > >> > > > > >> > My answer is no. As Lijie has mentioned, we need a way to > > >> avoid > > >> > > > > >> > deploying tasks to temporary hot nodes. In this case, > users > > >> may > > >> > > just > > >> > > > > >> > want to limit the load of the node and do not want to > kill > > >> all > > >> > the > > >> > > > > >> > processes on it. Another case is the speculative > > execution[1] > > >> > > which > > >> > > > > >> > may also leverage this feature to avoid starting mirror > > >> tasks on > > >> > > > slow > > >> > > > > >> > nodes. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > > > > >> > Zhu > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > [1] > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-168%3A+Speculative+execution+for+Batch+Job > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > Lijie Wang <wangdachui9...@gmail.com> 于2022年5月5日周四 > > 15:56写道： > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Hi everyone, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks for your feedback. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > There's one detail that I'd like to re-emphasize here > > >> because > > >> > it > > >> > > > can > > >> > > > > >> > affect the value and design of the blocklist mechanism > > >> (perhaps > > >> > I > > >> > > > > should > > >> > > > > >> > highlight it in the FLIP). We propose two actions in > FLIP: > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 1) MARK_BLOCKLISTED: Just mark the task manager or node > > as > > >> > > > blocked. > > >> > > > > >> > Future slots should not be allocated from the blocked > task > > >> > manager > > >> > > > or > > >> > > > > >> node. > > >> > > > > >> > But slots that are already allocated will not be > affected. > > A > > >> > > typical > > >> > > > > >> > application scenario is to mitigate machine hotspots. In > > this > > >> > > case, > > >> > > > we > > >> > > > > >> hope > > >> > > > > >> > that subsequent resource allocations will not be on the > hot > > >> > > machine, > > >> > > > > but > > >> > > > > >> > tasks currently running on it should not be affected. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 2) MARK_BLOCKLISTED_AND_EVACUATE_TASKS: Mark the task > > >> manager > > >> > or > > >> > > > > node > > >> > > > > >> as > > >> > > > > >> > blocked, and evacuate all tasks on it. Evacuated tasks > will > > >> be > > >> > > > > >> restarted on > > >> > > > > >> > non-blocked task managers. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > For the above 2 actions, the former may more highlight > > the > > >> > > meaning > > >> > > > > of > > >> > > > > >> > this FLIP, because the external system cannot do that. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Regarding *Manually* and *Automatically*, I basically > > agree > > >> > with > > >> > > > > >> @Becket > > >> > > > > >> > Qin: different users have different answers. Not all > users’ > > >> > > > deployment > > >> > > > > >> > environments have a special external system that can > > perform > > >> the > > >> > > > > anomaly > > >> > > > > >> > detection. In addition, adding pluggable/optional > > >> auto-detection > > >> > > > > doesn't > > >> > > > > >> > require much extra work on top of manual specification. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > I will answer your other questions one by one. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > @Yangze > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > a) I think you are right, we do not need to expose the > > >> > > > > >> > `cluster.resource-blocklist.item.timeout-check-interval` > to > > >> > users. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > b) We can abstract the `notifyException` to a separate > > >> > interface > > >> > > > > >> (maybe > > >> > > > > >> > BlocklistExceptionListener), and the > > >> > > ResourceManagerBlocklistHandler > > >> > > > > can > > >> > > > > >> > implement it in the future. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > @Martijn > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > a) I also think the manual blocking should be done by > > >> cluster > > >> > > > > >> operators. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > b) I think manual blocking makes sense, because > according > > >> to > > >> > my > > >> > > > > >> > experience, users are often the first to perceive the > > machine > > >> > > > problems > > >> > > > > >> > (because of job failover or delay), and they will contact > > >> > cluster > > >> > > > > >> operators > > >> > > > > >> > to solve it, or even tell the cluster operators which > > >> machine is > > >> > > > > >> > problematic. From this point of view, I think the people > > who > > >> > > really > > >> > > > > need > > >> > > > > >> > the manual blocking are the users, and it’s just > performed > > by > > >> > the > > >> > > > > >> cluster > > >> > > > > >> > operator, so I think the manual blocking makes sense. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > @Chesnay > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > We need to touch the logic of JM/SlotPool, because for > > >> > > > > >> MARK_BLOCKLISTED > > >> > > > > >> > , we need to know whether the slot is blocklisted when > the > > >> task > > >> > is > > >> > > > > >> > FINISHED/CANCELLED/FAILED. If so, SlotPool should > release > > >> the > > >> > > slot > > >> > > > > >> > directly to avoid assigning other tasks (of this job) on > > it. > > >> If > > >> > we > > >> > > > > only > > >> > > > > >> > maintain the blocklist information on the RM, JM needs to > > >> > retrieve > > >> > > > it > > >> > > > > by > > >> > > > > >> > RPC. I think the performance overhead of that is > relatively > > >> > large, > > >> > > > so > > >> > > > > I > > >> > > > > >> > think it's worth maintaining the blocklist information on > > >> the JM > > >> > > > side > > >> > > > > >> and > > >> > > > > >> > syncing them. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > @Роман > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > a) “Probably storing inside Zookeeper/Configmap > might > > >> be > > >> > > > helpful > > >> > > > > >> > here.” Can you explain it in detail? I don't fully > > >> understand > > >> > > that. > > >> > > > > In > > >> > > > > >> my > > >> > > > > >> > opinion, non-active and active are the same, and no > special > > >> > > > treatment > > >> > > > > is > > >> > > > > >> > required. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > b) I agree with you, the `endTimestamp` makes sense, I > > will > > >> > add > > >> > > it > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > >> > FLIP. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > @Yang > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > As mentioned above, AFAK, the external system cannot > > >> support > > >> > the > > >> > > > > >> > MARK_BLOCKLISTED action. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Looking forward to your further feedback. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Best, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Lijie > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Yang Wang <danrtsey...@gmail.com> 于2022年5月3日周二 > 21:09写道： > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> Thanks Lijie and Zhu for creating the proposal. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> I want to share some thoughts about Flink cluster > > >> operations. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> In the production environment, the SRE(aka Site > > >> Reliability > > >> > > > > Engineer) > > >> > > > > >> > >> already has many tools to detect the unstable nodes, > > which > > >> > > could > > >> > > > > take > > >> > > > > >> > the > > >> > > > > >> > >> system logs/metrics into consideration. > > >> > > > > >> > >> Then they use graceful-decomission in YARN and taint > in > > >> K8s > > >> > to > > >> > > > > >> prevent > > >> > > > > >> > new > > >> > > > > >> > >> allocations on these unstable nodes. > > >> > > > > >> > >> At last, they will evict all the containers and pods > > >> running > > >> > on > > >> > > > > these > > >> > > > > >> > nodes. > > >> > > > > >> > >> This mechanism also works for planned maintenance. So > I > > am > > >> > > afraid > > >> > > > > >> this > > >> > > > > >> > is > > >> > > > > >> > >> not the typical use case for FLIP-224. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> If we only support to block nodes manually, then I > could > > >> not > > >> > > see > > >> > > > > >> > >> the obvious advantages compared with current SRE's > > >> > approach(via > > >> > > > > *yarn > > >> > > > > >> > >> rmadmin or kubectl taint*). > > >> > > > > >> > >> At least, we need to have a pluggable component which > > >> could > > >> > > > expose > > >> > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > >> > >> potential unstable nodes automatically and block them > if > > >> > > enabled > > >> > > > > >> > explicitly. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> Best, > > >> > > > > >> > >> Yang > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> 于2022年5月2日周一 > 16:36写道： > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks for the proposal, Lijie. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > This is an interesting feature and discussion, and > > >> somewhat > > >> > > > > related > > >> > > > > >> > to the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > design principle about how people should operate > > Flink. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > I think there are three things involved in this > FLIP. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > a) Detect and report the unstable node. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > b) Collect the information of the unstable node > > and > > >> > > form a > > >> > > > > >> > blocklist. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > c) Take the action to block nodes. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > My two cents: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > 1. It looks like people all agree that Flink should > > have > > >> > c). > > >> > > It > > >> > > > > is > > >> > > > > >> > not only > > >> > > > > >> > >> > useful for cases of node failures, but also handy > for > > >> some > > >> > > > > planned > > >> > > > > >> > >> > maintenance. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > 2. People have different opinions on b), i.e. who > > >> should be > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > >> brain > > >> > > > > >> > to > > >> > > > > >> > >> > make the decision to block a node. I think this > > largely > > >> > > depends > > >> > > > > on > > >> > > > > >> > who we > > >> > > > > >> > >> > talk to. Different users would probably give > different > > >> > > answers. > > >> > > > > For > > >> > > > > >> > people > > >> > > > > >> > >> > who do have a centralized node health management > > >> service, > > >> > let > > >> > > > > Flink > > >> > > > > >> > do just > > >> > > > > >> > >> > do a) and c) would be preferred. So essentially > Flink > > >> would > > >> > > be > > >> > > > > one > > >> > > > > >> of > > >> > > > > >> > the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > sources that may detect unstable nodes, report it to > > >> that > > >> > > > > service, > > >> > > > > >> > and then > > >> > > > > >> > >> > take the command from that service to block the > > >> problematic > > >> > > > > nodes. > > >> > > > > >> On > > >> > > > > >> > the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > other hand, for users who do not have such a > service, > > >> > simply > > >> > > > > >> letting > > >> > > > > >> > Flink > > >> > > > > >> > >> > be clever by itself to block the suspicious nodes > > might > > >> be > > >> > > > > desired > > >> > > > > >> to > > >> > > > > >> > >> > ensure the jobs are running smoothly. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > So that indicates a) and b) here should be > pluggable / > > >> > > > optional. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > In light of this, maybe it would make sense to have > > >> > something > > >> > > > > >> > pluggable > > >> > > > > >> > >> > like a UnstableNodeReporter which exposes unstable > > nodes > > >> > > > > actively. > > >> > > > > >> (A > > >> > > > > >> > more > > >> > > > > >> > >> > general interface should be JobInfoReporter<T> which > > >> can be > > >> > > > used > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > >> > report > > >> > > > > >> > >> > any information of type <T>. But I'll just keep the > > >> scope > > >> > > > > relevant > > >> > > > > >> to > > >> > > > > >> > this > > >> > > > > >> > >> > FLIP here). Personally speaking, I think it is OK to > > >> have a > > >> > > > > default > > >> > > > > >> > >> > implementation of a reporter which just tells Flink > to > > >> take > > >> > > > > action > > >> > > > > >> to > > >> > > > > >> > block > > >> > > > > >> > >> > problematic nodes and also unblocks them after > > timeout. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 3:27 PM Роман Бойко < > > >> > > > ro.v.bo...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks for good initiative, Lijie and Zhu! > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > If it's possible I'd like to participate in > > >> development. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I agree with 3rd point of Konstantin's reply - we > > >> should > > >> > > > > consider > > >> > > > > >> > to move > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > somehow the information of blocklisted nodes/TMs > > from > > >> > > active > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > ResourceManager to non-active ones. Probably > storing > > >> > inside > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Zookeeper/Configmap might be helpful here. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > And I agree with Martijn that a lot of > organizations > > >> > don't > > >> > > > want > > >> > > > > >> to > > >> > > > > >> > expose > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > such API for a cluster user group. But I think > it's > > >> > > necessary > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > >> > have the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > mechanism for unblocking the nodes/TMs anyway for > > >> > avoiding > > >> > > > > >> incorrect > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > automatic behaviour. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > And another one small suggestion - I think it > would > > be > > >> > > better > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > >> > extend > > >> > > > > >> > >> > the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > *BlocklistedItem* class with the *endTimestamp* > > field > > >> and > > >> > > > fill > > >> > > > > it > > >> > > > > >> > at the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > item creation. This simple addition will allow to: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > - > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Provide the ability to users to setup the exact > > >> time > > >> > of > > >> > > > > >> > blocklist end > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > through RestAPI > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > - > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Not being tied to a single value of > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > *cluster.resource-blacklist.item.timeout* > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Mon, 2 May 2022 at 14:17, Chesnay Schepler < > > >> > > > > >> ches...@apache.org> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I do share the concern between blurring the > lines > > a > > >> > bit. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > That said, I'd prefer to not have any > > auto-detection > > >> > and > > >> > > > only > > >> > > > > >> > have an > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > opt-in mechanism > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > to manually block processes/nodes. To me this > > sounds > > >> > yet > > >> > > > > again > > >> > > > > >> > like one > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > of those > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > magical mechanisms that will rarely work just > > right. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > An external system can leverage way more > > information > > >> > > after > > >> > > > > all. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Moreover, I'm quite concerned about the > complexity > > >> of > > >> > > this > > >> > > > > >> > proposal. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Tracking on both the RM/JM side; syncing between > > >> > > > components; > > >> > > > > >> > >> > adjustments > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > to the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > slot and resource protocol. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > In a way it seems overly complicated. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > If we look at it purely from an active resource > > >> > > management > > >> > > > > >> > perspective, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > then there > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > isn't really a need to touch the slot protocol > at > > >> all > > >> > (or > > >> > > > in > > >> > > > > >> fact > > >> > > > > >> > to > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > anything in the JobMaster), > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > because there isn't any point in keeping around > > >> blocked > > >> > > TMs > > >> > > > > in > > >> > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > first > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > place. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > They'd just be idling, potentially shutting down > > >> after > > >> > a > > >> > > > > while > > >> > > > > >> by > > >> > > > > >> > the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > RM > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > because of > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > it (unless we _also_ touch that logic). > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Here the blocking of a process (be it by > blocking > > >> the > > >> > > > process > > >> > > > > >> or > > >> > > > > >> > node) > > >> > > > > >> > >> > is > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > equivalent with shutting down the blocked > > >> process(es). > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Once the block is lifted we can just spin it > back > > >> up. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > And I do wonder whether we couldn't apply the > same > > >> line > > >> > > of > > >> > > > > >> > thinking to > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > standalone resource management. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Here being able to stop/restart a process/node > > >> manually > > >> > > > > should > > >> > > > > >> be > > >> > > > > >> > a > > >> > > > > >> > >> > core > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > requirement for a Flink deployment anyway. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On 02/05/2022 08:49, Martijn Visser wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Hi everyone, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks for creating this FLIP. I can > understand > > >> the > > >> > > > problem > > >> > > > > >> and > > >> > > > > >> > I see > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > value > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > in the automatic detection and blocklisting. I > > do > > >> > have > > >> > > > some > > >> > > > > >> > concerns > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > with > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > the ability to manually specify to be blocked > > >> > > resources. > > >> > > > I > > >> > > > > >> have > > >> > > > > >> > two > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > concerns; > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > * Most organizations explicitly have a > > separation > > >> of > > >> > > > > >> concerns, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > meaning > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > that > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > there's a group who's responsible for > managing a > > >> > > cluster > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > >> > there's > > >> > > > > >> > >> > a > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > user > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > group who uses that cluster. With the > > >> introduction of > > >> > > > this > > >> > > > > >> > mechanism, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > latter group now can influence the > > responsibility > > >> of > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > >> first > > >> > > > > >> > group. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > So > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > it > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > can be possible that someone from the user > group > > >> > blocks > > >> > > > > >> > something, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > which > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > causes an outage (which could result in paging > > >> > > mechanism > > >> > > > > >> > triggering > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > etc) > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > which impacts the first group. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > * How big is the group of people who can go > > >> through > > >> > the > > >> > > > > >> process > > >> > > > > >> > of > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > manually > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > identifying a node that isn't behaving as it > > >> should > > >> > > be? I > > >> > > > > do > > >> > > > > >> > think > > >> > > > > >> > >> > this > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > group is relatively limited. Does it then make > > >> sense > > >> > to > > >> > > > > >> > introduce > > >> > > > > >> > >> > such > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > a > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > feature, which would only be used by a really > > >> small > > >> > > user > > >> > > > > >> group > > >> > > > > >> > of > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Flink? > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > We > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > still have to maintain, test and support such > a > > >> > > feature. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > I'm +1 for the autodetection features, but I'm > > >> > leaning > > >> > > > > >> towards > > >> > > > > >> > not > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > exposing > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > this to the user group but having this > available > > >> > > strictly > > >> > > > > for > > >> > > > > >> > cluster > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > operators. They could then also set up their > > >> > > > > >> > paging/metrics/logging > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > system > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > to take this into account. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Best regards, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Martijn Visser > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > https://twitter.com/MartijnVisser82 > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > https://github.com/MartijnVisser > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 09:39, Yangze Guo < > > >> > > > > karma...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> Thanks for driving this, Zhu and Lijie. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> +1 for the overall proposal. Just share some > > >> cents > > >> > > here: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> - Why do we need to expose > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > cluster.resource-blacklist.item.timeout-check-interval > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > >> > user? > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> I think the semantics of > > >> > > > > >> > `cluster.resource-blacklist.item.timeout` > > >> > > > > >> > >> > is > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> sufficient for the user. How to guarantee the > > >> > timeout > > >> > > > > >> > mechanism is > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> Flink's internal implementation. I think it > > will > > >> be > > >> > > very > > >> > > > > >> > confusing > > >> > > > > >> > >> > and > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> we do not need to expose it to users. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> - ResourceManager can notify the exception > of a > > >> task > > >> > > > > >> manager to > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> `BlacklistHandler` as well. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> For example, the slot allocation might fail > in > > >> case > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > >> target > > >> > > > > >> > task > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> manager is busy or has a network jitter. I > > don't > > >> > mean > > >> > > we > > >> > > > > >> need > > >> > > > > >> > to > > >> > > > > >> > >> > cover > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> this case in this version, but we can also > > open a > > >> > > > > >> > `notifyException` > > >> > > > > >> > >> > in > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> `ResourceManagerBlacklistHandler`. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> - Before we sync the blocklist to > > >> ResourceManager, > > >> > > will > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > >> > slot of > > >> > > > > >> > >> > a > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> blocked task manager continues to be released > > and > > >> > > > > allocated? > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> Best, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> Yangze Guo > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 3:11 PM Lijie Wang < > > >> > > > > >> > >> > wangdachui9...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> Hi Konstantin, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> Thanks for your feedback. I will response > > your 4 > > >> > > > remarks: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> 1) Thanks for reminding me of the > > controversy. I > > >> > > think > > >> > > > > >> > “BlockList” > > >> > > > > >> > >> > is > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> good > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> enough, and I will change it in FLIP. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> 2) Your suggestion for the REST API is a > good > > >> idea. > > >> > > > Based > > >> > > > > >> on > > >> > > > > >> > the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > above, I > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> would change REST API as following: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> POST/GET <host>/blocklist/nodes > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> POST/GET <host>/blocklist/taskmanagers > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> DELETE <host>/blocklist/node/<identifier> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> DELETE > > <host>/blocklist/taskmanager/<identifier> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> 3) If a node is blocking/blocklisted, it > means > > >> that > > >> > > all > > >> > > > > >> task > > >> > > > > >> > >> > managers > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > on > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> this node are blocklisted. All slots on > these > > >> TMs > > >> > are > > >> > > > not > > >> > > > > >> > >> > available. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > This > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> is actually a bit like TM losts, but these > TMs > > >> are > > >> > > not > > >> > > > > >> really > > >> > > > > >> > lost, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > they > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> are in an unavailable status, and they are > > still > > >> > > > > registered > > >> > > > > >> > in this > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > flink > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> cluster. They will be available again once > the > > >> > > > > >> corresponding > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > blocklist > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> item > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> is removed. This behavior is the same in > > >> > > > > active/non-active > > >> > > > > >> > >> > clusters. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> However in the active clusters, these TMs > may > > be > > >> > > > released > > >> > > > > >> due > > >> > > > > >> > to > > >> > > > > >> > >> > idle > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> timeouts. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> 4) For the item timeout, I prefer to keep > it. > > >> The > > >> > > > reasons > > >> > > > > >> are > > >> > > > > >> > as > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> following: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> a) The timeout will not affect users adding > or > > >> > > removing > > >> > > > > >> items > > >> > > > > >> > via > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > REST > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> API, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> and users can disable it by configuring it > to > > >> > > > > >> Long.MAX_VALUE . > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> b) Some node problems can recover after a > > >> period of > > >> > > > time > > >> > > > > >> > (such as > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > machine > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> hotspots), in which case users may prefer > that > > >> > Flink > > >> > > > can > > >> > > > > do > > >> > > > > >> > this > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> automatically instead of requiring the user > to > > >> do > > >> > it > > >> > > > > >> manually. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> Best, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> Lijie > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> Konstantin Knauf <kna...@apache.org> > > >> 于2022年4月27日周三 > > >> > > > > >> 19:23写道： > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> Hi Lijie, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> I think, this makes sense and +1 to only > > >> support > > >> > > > > manually > > >> > > > > >> > blocking > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> taskmanagers and nodes. Maybe the different > > >> > > strategies > > >> > > > > can > > >> > > > > >> > also be > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> maintained outside of Apache Flink. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> A few remarks: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> 1) Can we use another term than > "bla.cklist" > > >> due > > >> > to > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > controversy > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> around > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> the term? [1] There was also a Jira Ticket > > >> about > > >> > > this > > >> > > > > >> topic a > > >> > > > > >> > >> > while > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> back > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> and there was generally a consensus to > avoid > > >> the > > >> > > term > > >> > > > > >> > blacklist & > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> whitelist > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> [2]? We could use "blocklist" "denylist" or > > >> > > > > "quarantined" > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> 2) For the REST API, I'd prefer a slightly > > >> > different > > >> > > > > >> design > > >> > > > > >> > as > > >> > > > > >> > >> > verbs > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> like > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> add/remove often considered an anti-pattern > > for > > >> > REST > > >> > > > > APIs. > > >> > > > > >> > POST > > >> > > > > >> > >> > on a > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> list > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> item is generally the standard to add > items. > > >> > DELETE > > >> > > on > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > individual > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> resource is standard to remove an item. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> POST <host>/quarantine/items > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> DELETE > > <host>/quarantine/items/<itemidentifier> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> We could also consider to separate > > taskmanagers > > >> > and > > >> > > > > nodes > > >> > > > > >> in > > >> > > > > >> > the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > REST > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> API > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> (and internal data structures). Any opinion > > on > > >> > this? > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> POST/GET <host>/quarantine/nodes > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> POST/GET <host>/quarantine/taskmanager > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> DELETE <host>/quarantine/nodes/<identifier> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> DELETE > > >> <host>/quarantine/taskmanager/<identifier> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> 3) How would blocking nodes behave with > > >> non-active > > >> > > > > >> resource > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > managers, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> i.e. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> standalone or reactive mode? > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> 4) To keep the implementation even more > > >> minimal, > > >> > do > > >> > > we > > >> > > > > >> need > > >> > > > > >> > the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > timeout > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> behavior? If items are added/removed > manually > > >> we > > >> > > could > > >> > > > > >> > delegate > > >> > > > > >> > >> > this > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> to the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> user easily. In my opinion the timeout > > behavior > > >> > > would > > >> > > > > >> better > > >> > > > > >> > fit > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > into > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> specific strategies at a later point. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> Looking forward to your thoughts. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> Cheers and thank you, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> Konstantin > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> [1] > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist_(computing)#Controversy_over_use_of_the_term > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> [2] > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-18209 > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> Am Mi., 27. Apr. 2022 um 04:04 Uhr schrieb > > >> Lijie > > >> > > Wang > > >> > > > < > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> wangdachui9...@gmail.com>: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> Hi all, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> Flink job failures may happen due to > cluster > > >> node > > >> > > > > issues > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> (insufficient > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> disk > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> space, bad hardware, network > abnormalities). > > >> > Flink > > >> > > > will > > >> > > > > >> > take care > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > of > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> failures and redeploy the tasks. However, > > due > > >> to > > >> > > data > > >> > > > > >> > locality > > >> > > > > >> > >> > and > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> limited > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> resources, the new tasks are very likely > to > > be > > >> > > > > redeployed > > >> > > > > >> > to the > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > same > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> nodes, which will result in continuous > task > > >> > > > > abnormalities > > >> > > > > >> > and > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > affect > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> job > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> progress. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> Currently, Flink users need to manually > > >> identify > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > >> > problematic > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> node and > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> take it offline to solve this problem. But > > >> this > > >> > > > > approach > > >> > > > > >> has > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> following > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> disadvantages: > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> 1. Taking a node offline can be a heavy > > >> process. > > >> > > > Users > > >> > > > > >> may > > >> > > > > >> > need > > >> > > > > >> > >> > to > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> contact > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> cluster administors to do this. The > > operation > > >> can > > >> > > > even > > >> > > > > be > > >> > > > > >> > >> > dangerous > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> and > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> not > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> allowed during some important business > > events. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> 2. Identifying and solving this kind of > > >> problems > > >> > > > > manually > > >> > > > > >> > would > > >> > > > > >> > >> > be > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> slow > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> and > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> a waste of human resources. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> To solve this problem, Zhu Zhu and I > propose > > >> to > > >> > > > > >> introduce a > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > blacklist > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> mechanism for Flink to filter out > > problematic > > >> > > > > resources. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> You can find more details in FLIP-224[1]. > > >> Looking > > >> > > > > forward > > >> > > > > >> > to your > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> feedback. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> [1] > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-224%3A+Blacklist+Mechanism > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> Best, > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> Lijie > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > Best regards, > > >> > > Roman Boyko > > >> > > e.: ro.v.bo...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > https://twitter.com/snntrable > https://github.com/knaufk >
