Thanks Yangze for your attention, this would be a great help. And thanks Matthias too.
FLIP-156 [1] mentions some incompatibility between fine-grained resource > management and reactive mode. I assume that this is independent of the > SlotManager and replacing the DSM with the FGSM wouldn't affect reactive > mode? Yes. This incompatibility is independent of SlotManager. That means the AdpativeScheduler will always ignore the resource requirement set by slotSharingGroup and declare Unknown ResourceProfile to SlotManager. So, using FGSM as default will not affect reactive mode. About the heterogeneous TaskManager: This is a feature that's also not > supported in the DSM right now, is it? We should state that fact in the > FLIP if we mentioned that we don't want to implement it for the FSGM. Yes, both DSM and FGSM do not support request heterogeneous TaskManager right now. Heterogeneous will make the resource allocation logic more complicated, such as the resource deadlock if request A allocated the bigger slot B and then request B could not allocate the small slot A. We need to think more before starting to support the heterogeneous task manager. So, we don't want to implement heterogeneity in this FLIP. Best, Weihua On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 12:44 AM Matthias Pohl <matthias.p...@aiven.io.invalid> wrote: > Thanks for updating the FLIP and adding more context to it. Additionally, > thanks to Xintong and Yangze for offering your expertise here as > contributors to the initial FineGrainedSlotManager implementation. > > The remark on cutting out functionality was only based on some superficial > initial code reading. I cannot come up with a better code structure myself. > Therefore, I'm fine with not refactoring the code as part of this FLIP. > > The strategies that were proposed around making sure that the refactoring > is properly backed by tests sound reasonable. My initial concern was based > on the fact that we might have unit test scenarios for the DSM that are not > covered in the unit tests of the FSGM. In that case, swapping the DSM with > the FSGM might not be good enough. Going over the GSM tests to make sure > that we're not accidentally deleting test scenarios sounds good to me. > Thanks, Weihua. > > FLIP-156 [1] mentions some incompatibility between fine-grained resource > management and reactive mode. I assume that this is independent of the > SlotManager and replacing the DSM with the FGSM wouldn't affect reactive > mode? > > About the heterogeneous TaskManager: This is a feature that's also not > supported in the DSM right now, is it? We should state that fact in the > FLIP if we mentioned that we don't want to implement it for the FSGM. > > Best, > Matthias > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-156%3A+Runtime+Interfaces+for+Fine-Grained+Resource+Requirements > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 8:58 AM Yangze Guo <karma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Weihua, > > > > Thanks for driving this. As Xintong mentioned, this was a technical > > debt from FLIP-56. > > > > The latest version of FLIP sounds good, +1 from my side. As a > > contributor to this component, I'm willing to assist with the review > > process. Feel free to reach me if you need help. > > > > Best, > > Yangze Guo > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 1:47 PM Weihua Hu <huweihua....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > @David @Matthias > > > There are a few days after hearing your thoughts. I would like to know > if > > > there are any other concerns about this FLIP. > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > Weihua > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 7:53 PM Weihua Hu <huweihua....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Shammon, > > > > > > > > I've updated FLIP to add this redundant Task Manager limitation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Weihua > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 5:07 PM Shammon FY <zjur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi weihua > > > >> > > > >> Can you add content related to `heterogeneous resources` to this > > FLIP? We > > > >> can record it and consider it in the future. It may be useful for > some > > > >> scenarios, such as the combination of streaming and ML. > > > >> > > > >> Best, > > > >> Shammon > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 1:39 PM weijie guo < > guoweijieres...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Hi Weihua, > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks for your clarification, SGTM. > > > >> > > > > >> > Best regards, > > > >> > > > > >> > Weijie > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Weihua Hu <huweihua....@gmail.com> 于2023年3月6日周一 11:43写道： > > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks Weijie. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Heterogeneous task managers will not be considered in this FLIP > > since > > > >> > > it does not request heterogeneous resources as you said. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > My first thought is we can adjust the meaning of redundant > > > >> configuration > > > >> > > to redundant number of per resource type. These can be > considered > > in > > > >> > > detail when we decide to support heterogeneous task managers. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Best, > > > >> > > Weihua > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 1:13 AM weijie guo < > > guoweijieres...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks Weihua for preparing this FLIP. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > This FLIP overall looks reasonable to me after updating as > > > >> suggested by > > > >> > > > Matthias. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I only have one small question about keeping some redundant > task > > > >> > > managers: > > > >> > > > In the fine-grained resource management, theoretically, it can > > > >> support > > > >> > > > heterogeneous taskmanagers. When we complete the missing > > features > > > >> for > > > >> > > FGSM, > > > >> > > > do we plan to take this into account? > > > >> > > > Of course, if I remember correctly, FGSM will not request > > > >> heterogeneous > > > >> > > > resources at present, so it is also acceptable to me if there > > is no > > > >> > > special > > > >> > > > treatment now. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > +1 for this changes if we can ensure the test coverage. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Best regards, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Weijie > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org> 于2023年3月2日周四 12:53写道： > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for the test plan, Weihua! > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Yes, it addresses my concerns. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > John > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023, at 22:38, Weihua Hu wrote: > > > >> > > > > > Hi, everyone, > > > >> > > > > > Thanks for your suggestions and ideas. > > > >> > > > > > Thanks Xintong for sharing the detailed backgrounds of > > > >> SlotManager. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *@Matthias > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 1. Did you do a proper test coverage analysis? > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Just as Xintong said, we already have a CI stage for fine > > > >> grained > > > >> > > > > resource > > > >> > > > > > managers. > > > >> > > > > > And I will make sure FineGrainedSlotManager as the default > > > >> > > SlotManager > > > >> > > > > can > > > >> > > > > > pass all the tests of CI. > > > >> > > > > > In addition, I will review all unit tests of > > > >> > > > DeclarativeSlotManager(DSM) > > > >> > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > ensure that there are no gaps in the > > > >> > > > > > coverage provided by the FineGrainedSlotManager. > > > >> > > > > > I also added the 'Test Plan' part to the FLIP. > > > >> > > > > > @Matthias @John @Shammon Does this test plan address your > > > >> concerns? > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2. DeclarativeSlotManager and FineGrainedSlotManager feel > > quite > > > >> > big > > > >> > > in > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > terms of lines of code.... > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > IMO, the refactoring of SlotManager does not belong to > this > > FLIP > > > >> > > since > > > >> > > > it > > > >> > > > > > may lead to some unstable risks. For > > > >> > > > > > FineGrainedSlotManager(FGSM), we already split some > > reasonable > > > >> > > > > components. > > > >> > > > > > They are: > > > >> > > > > > * TaskManagerTracker: Track task managers and their > > resources. > > > >> > > > > > * ResourceTracker: track requirements of jobs > > > >> > > > > > * ResourceAllocationStrategy: Try to fulfill the resource > > > >> > > requirements > > > >> > > > > with > > > >> > > > > > available/pending resources. > > > >> > > > > > * SlotStatusSyncer: communicate with TaskManager, for > > > >> > > > allocating/freeing > > > >> > > > > > slot and reconciling the slot status > > > >> > > > > > Maybe we can start a discussion about refactoring > > SlotManager in > > > >> > > > another > > > >> > > > > > FLIP if there are some good suggestions. > > > >> > > > > > WDYT > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 3. For me personally, having a more detailed summary > > comparing > > > >> the > > > >> > > > > >> subcomponents of both SlotManager implementations with > > where > > > >> > > > > >> their functionality matches and where they differ might > > help > > > >> > > > understand > > > >> > > > > the > > > >> > > > > >> consequences of the changes proposed in FLIP-298 > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Good suggestion, I have updated the comparison in this > FLIP. > > > >> > Looking > > > >> > > > > > forward to any suggestions/thoughts > > > >> > > > > > if they are not described clearly. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *@John > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 4. In addition to changing the default, would it make > sense > > to > > > >> log > > > >> > a > > > >> > > > > >> deprecation warning on initialization > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > if the DeclarativeSlotManager is used? > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > SGTM, We should add Deprecated annotations to DSM for > devs. > > And > > > >> > log a > > > >> > > > > > deprecation warning for users. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *@Shammon > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 1. For their functional differences, can you give some > > detailed > > > >> > tests > > > >> > > > to > > > >> > > > > >> verify that the new FineGrainedSlotManager has these > > > >> capabilities? > > > >> > > > This > > > >> > > > > can > > > >> > > > > >> effectively verify the new functions > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > As just maintained, there is already a CI stage of FGSM, > > and I > > > >> will > > > >> > > do > > > >> > > > > more > > > >> > > > > > review of unit tests for DSM. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2. I'm worried that many functions are not independent > and > > it > > > >> is > > > >> > > > > difficult > > > >> > > > > >> to migrate step-by-step. You can list the relationship > > between > > > >> > them > > > >> > > in > > > >> > > > > >> detail. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > As Xintong saied the DSM is a subset of FGSM by design. > > But as > > > >> > time > > > >> > > > goes > > > >> > > > > > on, FGSM has some lacking > > > >> > > > > > functions as I listed in this FLIP. And I have added the > > > >> comparison > > > >> > > > > between > > > >> > > > > > DSM and FGSM in this FLIP. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks again for all your thoughts. Any feedback is > > appreciated! > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best, > > > >> > > > > > Weihua > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 2:17 PM Xintong Song < > > > >> tonysong...@gmail.com > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks Weihua for preparing this FLIP. +1 for the > proposal. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> As one of the contributors of the fine-grained slot > > manager, > > > >> I'd > > > >> > > like > > > >> > > > to > > > >> > > > > >> share some backgrounds here. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> - There used to be a defaut slot manager implementation, > > which > > > >> is > > > >> > > > > >> non-declarative and has been removed now. The two > features, > > > >> > > > declarative > > > >> > > > > / > > > >> > > > > >> reactive resource management and fine-grained resource > > > >> management, > > > >> > > > were > > > >> > > > > >> proposed at about the same time. We were aware that by > > design > > > >> the > > > >> > > > > >> declarative slot manager is a subset of fine-grained slot > > > >> manager > > > >> > at > > > >> > > > > that > > > >> > > > > >> time, but still decided to implement two slot managers > for > > the > > > >> > > purpose > > > >> > > > > of > > > >> > > > > >> decoupling efforts and reducing cross-team > synchronization > > > >> > overhead. > > > >> > > > > >> Merging the two slot managers once they are proved stable > > is > > > >> IMO a > > > >> > > > > >> technical debt that was planned at the very beginning. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> - The FineGrainedSlotManager has been verified in > Alibaba's > > > >> > internal > > > >> > > > > >> production as well as Alibaba Cloud services as the > default > > > >> slot > > > >> > > > manager > > > >> > > > > >> for about 2 years. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> Concerning test cases, we currently have a ci stage for > > fine > > > >> > grained > > > >> > > > > >> resource management. To avoid adding too much burden, the > > stage > > > >> > only > > > >> > > > > >> includes tests from flink-runtime and flink-test > modules. I > > > >> think > > > >> > > > > switching > > > >> > > > > >> the default slot manager and applying the whole set of > > tests on > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > >> fine-grained slot manager would help us to be more > > confident > > > >> about > > > >> > > it. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> Concerning cutting out functionalities out of slot > > manager, I > > > >> > think > > > >> > > > > Yangze > > > >> > > > > >> and I have tried our best to shape the > > FineGrainedSlotManager > > > >> into > > > >> > > > > >> reasonable components. I personally don't have other > ideas > > to > > > >> > > further > > > >> > > > > >> disassemble the component, but I'm open to such > > suggestions. > > > >> > > However, > > > >> > > > > from > > > >> > > > > >> the stability perspective, I'd be in favor of not > > introducing > > > >> > > > > significant > > > >> > > > > >> changes to the FineGrainedSlotManager while switching it > > to the > > > >> > > > default. > > > >> > > > > >> Because the current implementation has already been > > verified > > > >> (or > > > >> > at > > > >> > > > > least > > > >> > > > > >> partially verified because Alibaba does not cover all the > > Flink > > > >> > use > > > >> > > > > cases), > > > >> > > > > >> and introducing more changes also means more chances of > > > >> breaking > > > >> > > > things. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> Best, > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> Xintong > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 11:12 AM Shammon FY < > > zjur...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks for starting this work weihua, I think unifying > > > >> > > > > >> > DeclarativeSlotManager and FineGrainedSlotManager is > > > >> valuable. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > I agree with @Matthias and @John that we need a way to > > ensure > > > >> > that > > > >> > > > > >> > DeclarativeSlotManager's capabilities are fully covered > > by > > > >> > > > > >> > FineGrainedSlotManager > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > 1. For their functional differences, can you give some > > > >> detailed > > > >> > > > tests > > > >> > > > > to > > > >> > > > > >> > verify that the new FineGrainedSlotManager has these > > > >> > capabilities? > > > >> > > > > This > > > >> > > > > >> can > > > >> > > > > >> > effectively verify the new functions > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > 2. I'm worried that many functions are not independent > > and > > > >> it is > > > >> > > > > >> difficult > > > >> > > > > >> > to migrate step-by-step. You can list the relationship > > > >> between > > > >> > > them > > > >> > > > in > > > >> > > > > >> > detail. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > 3. As John mentioned, give a smoke test for > > > >> > FineGrainedSlotManager > > > >> > > > is > > > >> > > > > a > > > >> > > > > >> > good idea. Or you can add some test information to the > > > >> > > > > >> > DeclarativeSlotManager to determine how many tests have > > used > > > >> it. > > > >> > > In > > > >> > > > > this > > > >> > > > > >> > way, we can gradually construct test cases for > > > >> > > > FineGrainedSlotManager > > > >> > > > > >> > during the development process. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Best, > > > >> > > > > >> > Shammon > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:22 PM John Roesler < > > > >> > > vvcep...@apache.org> > > > >> > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks for the FLIP, Weihua! > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > I’ve read the FLIP, and it sounds good to me. We need > > to > > > >> avoid > > > >> > > > > >> > > proliferating alternative implementations wherever > > > >> possible. I > > > >> > > > have > > > >> > > > > >> just > > > >> > > > > >> > a > > > >> > > > > >> > > couple of comments: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 1. I share Matthias’s concern about ensuring the > > behavior > > > >> is > > > >> > > > really > > > >> > > > > the > > > >> > > > > >> > > same. One suggestion I’ve used for this kind of thing > > is, > > > >> as a > > > >> > > > smoke > > > >> > > > > >> > test, > > > >> > > > > >> > > to update the DeclarativeSlotManager to just delegate > > to > > > >> the > > > >> > > > > >> > > FineGrainedSlotManager. If the full test suite still > > > >> passes, > > > >> > you > > > >> > > > > can be > > > >> > > > > >> > > pretty sure the new default is really ok. It would > not > > be a > > > >> > good > > > >> > > > > idea > > > >> > > > > >> to > > > >> > > > > >> > > actually keep that in for the release, since it would > > > >> remove > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > option > > > >> > > > > >> > to > > > >> > > > > >> > > fall back in case of bugs. Either way, we need to > make > > sure > > > >> > all > > > >> > > > test > > > >> > > > > >> > > scenarios are present for the FGSM. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 4. In addition to changing the default, would it make > > > >> sense to > > > >> > > > log a > > > >> > > > > >> > > deprecation warning on initialization if the > > > >> > > > DeclarativeSlotManager > > > >> > > > > is > > > >> > > > > >> > used? > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks again, > > > >> > > > > >> > > John > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023, at 07:20, Matthias Pohl wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi Weihua, > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks for your proposal. From a conceptual point: > > AFAIU, > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > >> > > > DeclarativeSlotManager covers a subset (i.e. only > > evenly > > > >> > sized > > > >> > > > > slots) > > > >> > > > > >> > of > > > >> > > > > >> > > > what the FineGrainedSlotManager should be able to > > achieve > > > >> > > > > (variable > > > >> > > > > >> > slot > > > >> > > > > >> > > > size per task manager). Is this the right > > > >> > > > > assumption/understanding? > > > >> > > > > >> In > > > >> > > > > >> > > this > > > >> > > > > >> > > > sense, merging both implementations into a single > one > > > >> sounds > > > >> > > > > good. A > > > >> > > > > >> > few > > > >> > > > > >> > > > more general comments, though: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > 1. Did you do a proper test coverage analysis? > > That's not > > > >> > > > > mentioned > > > >> > > > > >> in > > > >> > > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > > > >> > > > current version of the FLIP. I'm bringing this up > > > >> because we > > > >> > > ran > > > >> > > > > into > > > >> > > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > >> > > > same issue when fixing the flaws that popped up > after > > > >> > > > introducing > > > >> > > > > the > > > >> > > > > >> > > > multi-component leader election (see FLIP-285 [1]). > > There > > > >> > is a > > > >> > > > > risk > > > >> > > > > >> > that > > > >> > > > > >> > > by > > > >> > > > > >> > > > removing the legacy code we decrease test coverage > > > >> because > > > >> > > > certain > > > >> > > > > >> > > > test cases that were covered for the legacy classes > > might > > > >> > not > > > >> > > be > > > >> > > > > >> > > > necessarily covered in the new implementation, yet > > (see > > > >> > > > > FLINK-30338 > > > >> > > > > >> [2] > > > >> > > > > >> > > > which covers this issue for the leader election > > case). > > > >> > > Ideally, > > > >> > > > we > > > >> > > > > >> > don't > > > >> > > > > >> > > > want to remove test cases accidentally because they > > were > > > >> > only > > > >> > > > > >> > implemented > > > >> > > > > >> > > > for the DeclarativeSlotManager but missed for the > > > >> > > > > >> > FineGrainedSlotManager. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > 2. DeclarativeSlotManager and > FineGrainedSlotManager > > feel > > > >> > > quite > > > >> > > > > big > > > >> > > > > >> in > > > >> > > > > >> > > > terms of lines of code. Without knowing whether > it's > > > >> > actually > > > >> > > a > > > >> > > > > >> > > reasonable > > > >> > > > > >> > > > thing to do: Instead of just adding more features > to > > the > > > >> > > > > >> > > > FineGrainedSlotManager, have you thought of cutting > > out > > > >> > > > > functionality > > > >> > > > > >> > > into > > > >> > > > > >> > > > smaller sub-components along this refactoring? > Such a > > > >> > > > step-by-step > > > >> > > > > >> > > approach > > > >> > > > > >> > > > might improve the overall codebase and might make > > > >> reviewing > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > > > >> > > refactoring > > > >> > > > > >> > > > easier. I did a first pass over the code and > > struggled to > > > >> > > > identify > > > >> > > > > >> code > > > >> > > > > >> > > > blocks that could be moved out of the SlotManager > > > >> > > > > implementation(s). > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Therefore, I might be wrong with this proposal. I > > haven't > > > >> > > worked > > > >> > > > > on > > > >> > > > > >> > this > > > >> > > > > >> > > > codebase in that detail that it would allow me to > > come up > > > >> > > with a > > > >> > > > > >> > > judgement > > > >> > > > > >> > > > call. I wanted to bring it up, anyway, because I'm > > > >> curious > > > >> > > > whether > > > >> > > > > >> that > > > >> > > > > >> > > > could be an option. There's a comment created by > > Chesnay > > > >> > > (CC'd) > > > >> > > > in > > > >> > > > > >> the > > > >> > > > > >> > > > JavaDoc of TaskExecutorManager [3] indicating > > something > > > >> > > similar. > > > >> > > > > I'm > > > >> > > > > >> > > > wondering whether he can add some insights here. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > 3. For me personally, having a more detailed > summary > > > >> > comparing > > > >> > > > the > > > >> > > > > >> > > > subcomponents of both SlotManager implementations > > with > > > >> where > > > >> > > > > >> > > > their functionality matches and where they differ > > might > > > >> help > > > >> > > > > >> understand > > > >> > > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > > > >> > > > consequences of the changes proposed in FLIP-298. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Best, > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Matthias > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > [1] > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-285%3A+Refactoring+LeaderElection+to+make+Flink+support+multi-component+leader+election+out-of-the-box > > > >> > > > > >> > > > [2] > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-30338 > > > >> > > > > >> > > > [3] > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/f611ea8cb5deddb42429df2c99f0c68d7382e9bd/flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/resourcemanager/slotmanager/TaskExecutorManager.java#L66-L68 > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 6:14 AM Matt Wang < > > > >> wang...@163.com> > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> This is a good proposal for me, it will make the > > code of > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > >> > SlotManager > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> more clear. > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> -- > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Best, > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Matt Wang > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> ---- Replied Message ---- > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> | From | David Morávek<d...@apache.org> | > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> | Date | 02/27/2023 22:45 | > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> | To | <dev@flink.apache.org> | > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> | Subject | Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-298: Unifying the > > > >> > > Implementation > > > >> > > > > of > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> SlotManager | > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Hi Weihua, I still need to dig into the details, > > but the > > > >> > > > overall > > > >> > > > > >> > > sentiment > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> of this change sounds reasonable. > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Best, > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> D. > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 2:26 PM Zhanghao Chen < > > > >> > > > > >> > > zhanghao.c...@outlook.com> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Thanks for driving this topic. I think this FLIP > > could > > > >> help > > > >> > > > > clean up > > > >> > > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> codebase to make it easier to maintain. +1 on it. > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Best, > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Zhanghao Chen > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> ________________________________ > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> From: Weihua Hu <huweihua....@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 20:40 > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> To: dev <dev@flink.apache.org> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Subject: [DISCUSS] FLIP-298: Unifying the > > > >> Implementation of > > > >> > > > > >> > SlotManager > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Hi everyone, > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> I would like to begin a discussion on FLIP-298: > > Unifying > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > >> > > Implementation > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> of SlotManager[1]. There are currently two types > of > > > >> > > SlotManager > > > >> > > > > in > > > >> > > > > >> > > Flink: > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> DeclarativeSlotManager and FineGrainedSlotManager. > > > >> > > > > >> > > FineGrainedSlotManager > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> should behave as DeclarativeSlotManager if the > user > > does > > > >> > not > > > >> > > > > >> configure > > > >> > > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> slot request profile. > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Therefore, this FLIP aims to unify the > > implementation of > > > >> > > > > SlotManager > > > >> > > > > >> > in > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> order to reduce maintenance costs. > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Looking forward to hearing from you. > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> [1] > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-298%3A+Unifying+the+Implementation+of+SlotManager > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Best, > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> Weihua > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
