Based on further discussion I had with Chesnay on this PR [1], I think jobs would currently go into a restarting state after the resource requirements have changed. This wouldn't achieve what we had in mind, i.e. sticking to the old resource requirements until enough slots are available to fulfil the new resource requirements. So this may not be 100% what we need but it could be extended to do what we want.
-Max [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/21908#discussion_r1104792362 On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 7:16 PM Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi David, > > This is awesome! Great writeup and demo. This is pretty much what we > need for the autoscaler as part of the Flink Kubernetes operator [1]. > Scaling Flink jobs effectively is hard but fortunately we have solved > the issue as part of the Flink Kubernetes operator. The only critical > piece we are missing is a better way to execute scaling decisions, as > discussed in [2]. > > Looking at your proposal, we would set lowerBound == upperBound for > the parallelism because we want to fully determine the parallelism > externally based on the scaling metrics. Does that sound right? > > What is the timeline for these changes? Is there a JIRA? > > Cheers, > Max > > [1] > https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-kubernetes-operator-docs-main/docs/custom-resource/autoscaler/ > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/2f7dgr88xtbmsohtr0f6wmsvw8sw04f5 > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 1:16 PM feng xiangyu <xiangyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi David, > > > > Thanks for your reply. I think your response totally make sense. This > > flip targets on declaring required resource to ResourceManager instead of > > using ResourceManager to add/remove TMs directly. > > > > Best, > > Xiangyu > > > > > > > > David Morávek <david.mora...@gmail.com> 于2023年2月13日周一 15:46写道： > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > @Shammon > > > > > > I'm not entirely sure what "config file" you're referring to. You can, of > > > course, override the default parallelism in "flink-conf.yaml", but for > > > sinks and sources, the parallelism needs to be tweaked on the connector > > > level ("WITH" statement). > > > > > > This is something that should be achieved with tooling around Flink. We > > > want to provide an API on the lowest level that generalizes well. > > > Achieving > > > what you're describing should be straightforward with this API. > > > > > > @Xiangyu > > > > > > Is it possible for this REST API to declare TM resources in the future? > > > > > > > > > Would you like to add/remove TMs if you use an active Resource Manager? > > > This would be out of the scope of this effort since it targets the > > > scheduler component only (we make no assumptions about the used Resource > > > Manager). Also, the AdaptiveScheduler is only intended to be used for > > > Streaming. > > > > > > And for streaming jobs, I'm wondering if there is any situation we need > > > to > > > > rescale the TM resources of a flink cluster at first and then the > > > adaptive > > > > scheduler will rescale the per-vertex ResourceProfiles accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > We plan on adding support for the ResourceProfiles (dynamic slot > > > allocation) as the next step. Again we won't make any assumptions about > > > the > > > used Resource Manager. In other words, this effort ends by declaring > > > desired resources to the Resource Manager. > > > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > > > @Matthias > > > > > > We've done another pass on the proposed API and currently lean towards > > > having an idempotent PUT API. > > > - We don't care too much about multiple writers' scenarios in terms of who > > > can write an authoritative payload; this is up to the user of the API to > > > figure out > > > - It's indeed tricky to achieve atomicity with PATCH API; switching to PUT > > > API seems to do the trick > > > - We won't allow partial "payloads" anymore, meaning you need to define > > > requirements for all vertices in the JobGraph; This is completely fine for > > > the programmatic workflows. For DEBUG / DEMO purposes, you can use the GET > > > endpoint and tweak the response to avoid writing the whole payload by > > > hand. > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > D. > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:21 AM feng xiangyu <xiangyu...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > > > Thanks for creating this flip. I think this work it is very useful, > > > > especially in autoscaling scenario. I would like to share some > > > > questions > > > > from my view. > > > > > > > > 1, Is it possible for this REST API to declare TM resources in the > > > future? > > > > I'm asking because we are building the autoscaling feature for Flink > > > > OLAP > > > > Session Cluster in ByteDance. We need to rescale the cluster's resource > > > on > > > > TM level instead of Job level. It would be very helpful if we have a > > > > REST > > > > API for out external Autoscaling service to use. > > > > > > > > 2, And for streaming jobs, I'm wondering if there is any situation we > > > need > > > > to rescale the TM resources of a flink cluster at first and then the > > > > adaptive scheduler will rescale the per-vertex ResourceProfiles > > > > accordingly. > > > > > > > > best. > > > > Xiangyu > > > > > > > > Shammon FY <zjur...@gmail.com> 于2023年2月9日周四 11:31写道： > > > > > > > > > Hi David > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your answer. > > > > > > > > > > > Can you elaborate more about how you'd intend to use the endpoint? I > > > > > think we can ultimately introduce a way of re-declaring "per-vertex > > > > > defaults," but I'd like to understand the use case bit more first. > > > > > > > > > > For this issue, I mainly consider the consistency of user > > > > > configuration > > > > and > > > > > job runtime. For sql jobs, users usually set specific parallelism for > > > > > source and sink, and set a global parallelism for other operators. > > > These > > > > > config items are stored in a config file. For some high-priority jobs, > > > > > users may want to manage them manually. > > > > > 1. When users need to scale the parallelism, they should update the > > > > config > > > > > file and restart flink job, which may take a long time. > > > > > 2. After providing the REST API, users can just send a request to the > > > job > > > > > via REST API quickly after updating the config file. > > > > > The configuration in the running job and config file should be the > > > same. > > > > > What do you think of this? > > > > > > > > > > best. > > > > > Shammon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 4:51 PM David Morávek <david.mora...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's try to answer the questions one by one. > > > > > > > > > > > > *@ConradJam* > > > > > > > > > > > > when the number of "slots" is insufficient, can we can stop users > > > > > rescaling > > > > > > > or throw something to tell user "less avaliable slots to upgrade, > > > > > please > > > > > > > checkout your alivalbe slots" ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The main property of AdaptiveScheduler is that it can adapt to > > > > "available > > > > > > resources," which means you're still able to make progress even > > > though > > > > > you > > > > > > didn't get all the slots you've asked for. Let's break down the pros > > > > and > > > > > > cons of this property. > > > > > > > > > > > > - (plus) If you lose a TM for some reason, you can still recover > > > > > > even > > > > if > > > > > it > > > > > > doesn't come back. We still need to give it some time to eliminate > > > > > > unnecessary rescaling, which can be controlled by setting > > > > > > "resource-stabilization-timeout." > > > > > > - (plus) The resources can arrive with a significant delay. For > > > > example, > > > > > > you're unable to spawn enough TMs on time because you've run out of > > > > > > resources in your k8s cluster, and you need to wait for the cluster > > > > auto > > > > > > scaler to kick in and add new nodes to the cluster. In this > > > > > > scenario, > > > > > > you'll be able to start making progress faster, at the cost of > > > multiple > > > > > > rescalings (once the remaining resources arrive). > > > > > > - (plus) This plays well with the declarative manner of today's > > > > > > infrastructure. For example, you tell k8s that you need 10 TMs, and > > > > > you'll > > > > > > eventually get them. > > > > > > - (minus) In the case of large state jobs, the cost of multiple > > > > > rescalings > > > > > > might outweigh the above. > > > > > > > > > > > > We've already touched on the solution to this problem on the FLIP. > > > > Please > > > > > > notice the parallelism knob being a range with a lower and upper > > > bound. > > > > > > Setting both the lower and upper bound to the same value could give > > > the > > > > > > behavior you're describing at the cost of giving up some properties > > > > that > > > > > AS > > > > > > gives you (you'd be falling back to the DefaultScheduler's > > > > > > behavior). > > > > > > > > > > > > when user upgrade job-vertx-parallelism . I want to have an > > > > > > interface > > > > to > > > > > > > query the current update parallel execution status, so that the > > > user > > > > or > > > > > > > program can understand the current status > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a misunderstanding. We're not introducing the RESCALE > > > endpoint. > > > > > > This endpoint allows you to re-declare the resources needed to run > > > the > > > > > job. > > > > > > Once you reach the desired resources (you get more resources than > > > > > > the > > > > > lower > > > > > > bound defines), your job will run. > > > > > > > > > > > > We can expose a similar endpoint to "resource requirements" to give > > > you > > > > > an > > > > > > overview of the resources the vertices already have. You can already > > > > get > > > > > > this from the REST API, so exposing this in yet another way should > > > > > > be > > > > > > considered carefully. > > > > > > > > > > > > *@Matthias* > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm wondering whether it makes sense to add some kind of resource ID > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > > > REST API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good question. I want to think about that and get back to > > > the > > > > > > question later. My main struggle when thinking about this is, "if > > > this > > > > > > would be an idempotent POST endpoint," would it be any different? > > > > > > > > > > > > How often do we allow resource requirements to be changed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There shall be no rate limiting on the FLINK side. If this is > > > something > > > > > > your environment needs, you can achieve it on a different layer ("we > > > > > can't > > > > > > have FLINK to do everything"). > > > > > > > > > > > > Versioning the JobGraph in the JobGraphStore rather than overwriting > > > it > > > > > > > might be an idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This sounds interesting since it would be closer to the JobGraph > > > being > > > > > > immutable. The main problem I see here is that this would introduce > > > > > > a > > > > > > BW-incompatible change so it might be a topic for follow-up FLIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm just wondering whether we bundle two things together that are > > > > > actually > > > > > > > separate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yup, this is how we think about it as well. The main question is, > > > "who > > > > > > should be responsible for bookkeeping 1) the JobGraph and 2) the > > > > > > JobResourceRequirements". The JobMaster would be the right place for > > > > > both, > > > > > > but it's currently not the case, and we're tightly coupling the > > > > > dispatcher > > > > > > with the JobMaster. > > > > > > > > > > > > Initially, we tried to introduce a separate HA component in > > > > > > JobMaster > > > > for > > > > > > bookkeeping the JobResourceRequirements, but that proved to be a > > > > > > more > > > > > > significant effort adding additional mess to the already messy HA > > > > > > ecosystem. Another approach we've discussed was mutating the > > > > > > JobGraph > > > > and > > > > > > setting JRR into the JobGraph structure itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > The middle ground for keeping this effort reasonably sized and not > > > > > > violating "we want to keep JG immutable" too much is keeping the > > > > > > JobResourceRequirements separate as an internal config option in > > > > > JobGraph's > > > > > > configuration. > > > > > > > > > > > > We ultimately need to rethink the tight coupling of Dispatcher and > > > > > > JobMaster, but it needs to be a separate effort. > > > > > > > > > > > > ...also considering the amount of data that can be stored in a > > > > > > > ConfigMap/ZooKeeper node if versioning the resource requirement > > > > change > > > > > as > > > > > > > proposed in my previous item is an option for us. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK we're only storing pointers to the S3 objects in HA metadata, > > > so > > > > we > > > > > > should be okay with having larger structures for now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Updating the JobGraphStore means adding more requests to the HA > > > backend > > > > > > API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's fine unless you intend to override the resource requirements a > > > few > > > > > > times per second. > > > > > > > > > > > > *@Shammon* > > > > > > > > > > > > How about adding some more information such as vertex type > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since it was intended as a "debug" endpoint, it makes complete > > > > > > sense! > > > > > > > > > > > > For sql jobs, we always use a unified parallelism for most > > > > > > vertices. > > > > Can > > > > > > > we provide them with a more convenient setting method instead of > > > each > > > > > > one? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely feel with this. The main thoughts when designing the > > > > > > API > > > > > were: > > > > > > - We want to keep it clean and easy to understand. > > > > > > - Global parallelism can be modeled using per-vertex parallelism but > > > > not > > > > > > the other way around. > > > > > > - The API will be used by external tooling (operator, auto scaler). > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you elaborate more about how you'd intend to use the endpoint? I > > > > > think > > > > > > we can ultimately introduce a way of re-declaring "per-vertex > > > > defaults," > > > > > > but I'd like to understand the use case bit more first. > > > > > > > > > > > > *@Weijie* > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the default value here (based on what configuration), or > > > > > > just > > > > > > > infinite? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently, for the lower bound, it's always one, and for the upper > > > > bound, > > > > > > it's either parallelism (if defined) or the maxParallelism of the > > > > vertex > > > > > in > > > > > > JobGraph. This question might be another signal for making the > > > defaults > > > > > > explicit (see the answer to Shammon's question above). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, everyone, for your initial thoughts! > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 4:39 AM weijie guo <guoweijieres...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks David for driving this. This is a very valuable work, > > > > especially > > > > > > for > > > > > > > cloud native environment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> How about adding some more information such as vertex type > > > > > > > (SOURCE/MAP/JOIN and .etc) in the response of `get jobs > > > > > > > resource-requirements`? For users, only vertex-id may be difficult > > > to > > > > > > > understand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for this suggestion, including jobvertex's name in the response > > > > body > > > > > > is > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > user-friendly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I saw this sentence in FLIP: "Setting the upper bound to -1 will > > > > reset > > > > > > the > > > > > > > value to the default setting." What is the default value here > > > (based > > > > > on > > > > > > > what configuration), or just infinite? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Weijie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shammon FY <zjur...@gmail.com> 于2023年2月6日周一 18:06写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for initiating this discussion. I think declaring job > > > > resource > > > > > > > > requirements by REST API is very valuable. I just left some > > > > comments > > > > > as > > > > > > > > followed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) How about adding some more information such as vertex type > > > > > > > > (SOURCE/MAP/JOIN and .etc) in the response of `get jobs > > > > > > > > resource-requirements`? For users, only vertex-id may be > > > difficult > > > > to > > > > > > > > understand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) For sql jobs, we always use a unified parallelism for most > > > > > vertices. > > > > > > > Can > > > > > > > > we provide them with a more convenient setting method instead of > > > > each > > > > > > > one? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Shammon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 8:18 PM Matthias Pohl < > > > > matthias.p...@aiven.io > > > > > > > > .invalid> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks David for creating this FLIP. It sounds promising and > > > > useful > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > have. Here are some thoughts from my side (some of them might > > > be > > > > > > > rather a > > > > > > > > > follow-up and not necessarily part of this FLIP): > > > > > > > > > - I'm wondering whether it makes sense to add some kind of > > > > resource > > > > > > ID > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > the REST API. This would give Flink a tool to verify the PATCH > > > > > > request > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > the external system in a compare-and-set kind of manner. > > > > > > > > > AFAIU, > > > > the > > > > > > > > process > > > > > > > > > requires the external system to retrieve the resource > > > > requirements > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > (to retrieve the vertex IDs). A resource ID <ABC> would be > > > > > > > > > sent > > > > > along > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > unique identifier for the provided setup. It's essentially the > > > > > > version > > > > > > > ID > > > > > > > > > of the currently deployed resource requirement configuration. > > > > Flink > > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > > know whether the external system would use the provided > > > > information > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > way to derive a new set of resource requirements for this job. > > > > The > > > > > > > > > subsequent PATCH request with updated resource requirements > > > would > > > > > > > include > > > > > > > > > the previously retrieved resource ID <ABC>. The PATCH call > > > would > > > > > fail > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > there was a concurrent PATCH call in between indicating to the > > > > > > external > > > > > > > > > system that the resource requirements were concurrently > > > updated. > > > > > > > > > - How often do we allow resource requirements to be changed? > > > That > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > might make my previous comment on the resource ID obsolete > > > > because > > > > > we > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > just make any PATCH call fail if there was a resource > > > requirement > > > > > > > update > > > > > > > > > within a certain time frame before the request. But such a > > > > > > > > > time > > > > > > period > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > something we might want to make configurable then, I guess. > > > > > > > > > - Versioning the JobGraph in the JobGraphStore rather than > > > > > > overwriting > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > might be an idea. This would enable us to provide resource > > > > > > requirement > > > > > > > > > changes in the UI or through the REST API. It is related to a > > > > > problem > > > > > > > > > around keeping track of the exception history within the > > > > > > > > AdaptiveScheduler > > > > > > > > > and also having to consider multiple versions of a JobGraph. > > > But > > > > > for > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > one, we use the ExecutionGraphInfoStore right now. > > > > > > > > > - Updating the JobGraph in the JobGraphStore makes sense. I'm > > > > just > > > > > > > > > wondering whether we bundle two things together that are > > > actually > > > > > > > > separate: > > > > > > > > > The business logic and the execution configuration (the > > > resource > > > > > > > > > requirements). I'm aware that this is not a flaw of the > > > > > > > > > current > > > > > FLIP > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > rather something that was not necessary to address in the past > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > JobGraph was kind of static. I don't remember whether that was > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > discussed while working on the AdaptiveScheduler for FLIP-160 > > > > [1]. > > > > > > > Maybe, > > > > > > > > > I'm missing some functionality here that requires us to have > > > > > > everything > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > one place. But it feels like updating the entire JobGraph > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > could > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > actually a "config change" is not reasonable. ...also > > > considering > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > amount of data that can be stored in a ConfigMap/ZooKeeper > > > > > > > > > node > > > > if > > > > > > > > > versioning the resource requirement change as proposed in my > > > > > previous > > > > > > > > item > > > > > > > > > is an option for us. > > > > > > > > > - Updating the JobGraphStore means adding more requests to the > > > HA > > > > > > > backend > > > > > > > > > API. There were some concerns shared in the discussion thread > > > [2] > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > FLIP-270 [3] on pressuring the k8s API server in the past with > > > > too > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > calls. Eventhough, it's more likely to be caused by > > > > checkpointing, > > > > > I > > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > wanted to bring it up. We're working on a standardized > > > > performance > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > prepare going forward with FLIP-270 [3] right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-160%3A+Adaptive+Scheduler > > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/bm6rmxxk6fbrqfsgz71gvso58950d4mj > > > > > > > > > [3] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-270%3A+Repeatable+Cleanup+of+Checkpoints > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:31 AM ConradJam <jam.gz...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi David: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for drive this flip, which helps less flink > > > shutdown > > > > > time > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for this flip, I would like to make a few idea on share > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - when the number of "slots" is insufficient, can we can > > > > stop > > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > > rescaling or throw something to tell user "less avaliable > > > > > slots > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > upgrade, > > > > > > > > > > please checkout your alivalbe slots" ? Or we could have a > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > > > switch(true/false) to allow this behavior > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - when user upgrade job-vertx-parallelism . I want to > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > an > > > > > > > > > interface > > > > > > > > > > to query the current update parallel execution status, so > > > > that > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > program can understand the current status > > > > > > > > > > - I want to have an interface to query the current update > > > > > > > > parallelism > > > > > > > > > > execution status. This also helps similar to *[1] Flink > > > K8S > > > > > > > > Operator* > > > > > > > > > > management > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > > status: Failed > > > > > > > > > > reason: "less avaliable slots to upgrade, please checkout > > > > your > > > > > > > > alivalbe > > > > > > > > > > slots" > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - *Pending*: this job now is join the upgrade queue,it > > > will > > > > be > > > > > > > > update > > > > > > > > > > later > > > > > > > > > > - *Rescaling*: job now is rescaling,wait it finish > > > > > > > > > > - *Finished*: finish do it > > > > > > > > > > - *Failed* : something have wrong,so this job is not > > > > alivable > > > > > > > > upgrade > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to supplement my above content in flip, what do you > > > > think > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-kubernetes-operator-docs-main/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David Morávek <d...@apache.org> 于2023年2月3日周五 16:42写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This FLIP [1] introduces a new REST API for declaring > > > > resource > > > > > > > > > > requirements > > > > > > > > > > > for the Adaptive Scheduler. There seems to be a clear need > > > > for > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > > > based on the discussion on the "Reworking the Rescale API" > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before we get started, this work is heavily based on the > > > > > > prototype > > > > > > > > [3] > > > > > > > > > > > created by Till Rohrmann, and the FLIP is being published > > > > with > > > > > > his > > > > > > > > > > consent. > > > > > > > > > > > Big shoutout to him! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Last and not least, thanks to Chesnay and Roman for the > > > > initial > > > > > > > > reviews > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The best start would be watching a short demo [4] that > > > > > > > > > > > I've > > > > > > > recorded, > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > illustrates newly added capabilities (rescaling the > > > > > > > > > > > running > > > > > job, > > > > > > > > > handing > > > > > > > > > > > back resources to the RM, and session cluster support). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The intuition behind the FLIP is being able to define > > > > resource > > > > > > > > > > requirements > > > > > > > > > > > ("resource boundaries") externally that the > > > AdaptiveScheduler > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > navigate > > > > > > > > > > > within. This is a building block for higher-level efforts > > > > such > > > > > as > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > external Autoscaler. The natural extension of this work > > > would > > > > > be > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > allow > > > > > > > > > > > to specify per-vertex ResourceProfiles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your thoughts; any feedback is > > > > appreciated! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-291%3A+Externalized+Declarative+Resource+Management > > > > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/2f7dgr88xtbmsohtr0f6wmsvw8sw04f5 > > > > > > > > > > > [3] https://github.com/tillrohrmann/flink/tree/autoscaling > > > > > > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vp8W-7Zk_iKXPTAiBT-eLPmCMd_I57Ty/view > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Best > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ConradJam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
