I am completely in favor of splitting the LeaderServices and PersistenceServices while sharing the same concern that MaterialProvider is not very easy to understand. It just feels like we do the separation but not thoroughly.
If you have a clear plan for the subsequent improvements, I am fine that we only focus on the OLAP requirements in FLIP-403. Best, Yang On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:40 AM Yangze Guo <karma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the comments, Zhu. > > > Did you look into which part takes most of the time? Jar uploading, Jar > downloading, JobInformation shipping, TDD shipping, or others? > > In our scenario, the key factor should be the JobInformation shipping, > as the jobs are completed within 1 second. This can have a big impact > on the QPS. > > > If these objects are large, e.g. a hundreds megabytes connector jar, > will ship it hundreds of times(if parallelism > 100) from JMs to TMs be a > blocker of performance and stability, compared letting the DFS help with > the shipping... I'm fine to use a void blobService in OLAP scenarios *by > default* if it works better in most cases. > > Thanks for the input. Currently, in our scenario, the connector jars > are pre-deployed on the JM and TM, and each job submission only > includes the serialized JobGraph. However, if there are custom > connectors and UDFs involved in the future, I believe choosing the > appropriate blob strategy will indeed require a further analysis. So, > +1 for providing users with the option to switch between blob > services. high-availability.blob-store.enabled sounds good from my > side. We can set it to false if it is not manually configured and if > high-availability.job-recovery.enabled is set to false. > > If there are no further comments, I will adjust the FLIP based on > these discussions and then initiate a vote. > > Best, > Yangze Guo > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 5:55 PM Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Correction: > > I'm fine to use a void blobService in OLAP scenarios if it works better > > in most cases. -> I'm fine to use a void blobService in OLAP scenarios > > *by default* if it works better in most cases. > > > > > > > > Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com> 于2024年1月15日周一 17:51写道： > > > > > @Yangze > > > > > > > (with 128 parallelism WordCount jobs), disabling BlobStore resulted > in a > > > 100% increase in QPS > > > > > > Did you look into which part takes most of the time? Jar uploading, Jar > > > downloading, JobInformation shipping, TDD shipping, or others? > > > > > > If these objects are large, e.g. a hundreds megabytes connector jar, > > > will ship it hundreds of times(if parallelism > 100) from JMs to TMs > > > be a blocker of performance and stability, compared letting the DFS > > > help with the shipping. If yes, we should not force it to use a void > > > blobService. Maybe an option should be given to users to switch between > > > blobServices? > > > > > > I'm fine to use a void blobService in OLAP scenarios if it works better > > > in most cases. However, it is a bit weird that we disable blobs if > > > `enable-job-recovery=false`. Conceptually, they should be unrelated. > > > > > > > As Matthias mentioned, each component still needs to write its RPC > > > address, so this part of the writing may be unavoidable. > > > > > > Thanks Matthias for the inputs. > > > However, even in non-ha mode, that task manager can connect to > JobMaster. > > > Therefore, I guess it's not necessary to store JM addresses externally. > > > I noticed `HighAvailabilityServices#getJobManagerLeaderRetriever` > > > accepts a parameter `defaultJobManagerAddress`. So maybe it's not > needed > > > for TMs to find out the addresses of JMs via external services? > > > > > > > focus on the discussion of HA functionality in the OLAP scenario in > > > FLIP-403 and exclude the refactoring from the scope of this FLIP > > > > > > It sounds good to me. > > > Actually the concept of separating leader election and persistence > > > looks great to me at the first glance. But the shared MaterialProvider > > > makes it more complicated than I had expected. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Zhu > > > > > > Yangze Guo <karma...@gmail.com> 于2024年1月11日周四 14:53写道： > > > > > >> Thanks for the comments, Zhu and Matthias. > > >> > > >> @Zhu Zhu > > >> > > >> > How about disabling the checkpoint to avoid the cost? I know the > cost > > >> is there even if we disable the checkpoint at the moment. But I think > it > > >> can be fixed. > > >> > If HA is disabled, the jobmanager needs to directly participate in > all > > >> blob shipping work which may result in a hot-spot. > > >> > > >> Currently, there are several persistence services that have specific > > >> implementations based on the HA mode: > > >> - JobGraphStore and JobResultStore: These are related to job recovery > > >> and can cause significant redundant I/O in OLAP scenarios, impacting > > >> performance. It may be necessary to configure them as in-memory stores > > >> for OLAP. > > >> - CompletedCheckpointStore: As @Zhu Zhu mentioned, we can avoid this > > >> overhead by disabling checkpoints. I agree to remove Checkpoint > > >> Storage from the scope of this FLIP. > > >> - BlobStore: Agree that disabling BlobStore can potentially lead to > > >> hotspots in JobManagers. However, enabling it in OLAP scenarios can > > >> also result in high external storage access overhead , e.g. > > >> JobInformation/ShuffleDescriptor in TDD. I think this is a trade-off. > > >> In our internal benchmark for short query (with 128 parallelism > > >> WordCount jobs), disabling BlobStore resulted in a 100% increase in > > >> QPS. Therefore, I lean towards disabling it. WDYT? > > >> > > >> > FLINK-24038 > > >> > > >> As Matthias mentioned, each component still needs to write its RPC > > >> address, so this part of the writing may be unavoidable. > > >> > > >> @Zhu Zhu @Matthias > > >> > > >> > I don't see why the PersistenceServices needs to have access to the > > >> MaterialProvider. I feel like there shouldn't be a component that's > shared > > >> between the LeaderElectionService and the PersistenceServices. > > >> > The corresponding ZooKeeper/k8s implementation would hold the client > > >> instance (which is the only thing that should be shared between the > > >> LeaderElectionService and the PersistenceServices implementations). > > >> > > >> Yes, I agree that this is the goal of splitting the interfaces. > > >> However, when I attempted to split it, I found that these two services > > >> still have implicit temporal dependencies, such as the closure of the > > >> client instance and the cleanup of services and job data. > > >> > > >> Regards the refactoring of HighAvailabilityServices, I try to > > >> summarize the following issues that need to be considered: > > >> - Splitting LeaderServices and PersistenceServices; As Matthias > > >> mentioned, this allows for easier testing. > > >> - Removal of deprecated interfaces, such as > > >> getWebMonitorLeaderElectionService. > > >> - Reviewing existing multiple close and cleanup interfaces. > > >> - Integration of StandaloneHaServices and EmbeddedHaServices. > > >> I think this topic might be big enough to have a separate discussion > > >> thread. I am now inclined to focus on the discussion of HA > > >> functionality in the OLAP scenario in FLIP-403 and exclude the > > >> refactoring from the scope of this FLIP. This way, we can simply > > >> return different persistence services in AbstractHaServices based on > > >> the configuration. And I'm willing to file a new FLIP (or perhaps a > > >> ticket would be sufficient) for the refactoring of HA. WDYT? > > >> > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Yangze Guo > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 12:19 AM Matthias Pohl > > >> <matthias.p...@aiven.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Thanks for joining the discussion, everyone and sorry for picking > it up > > >> > that late. Here are a few points, I want to add to this discussion: > > >> > > > >> > - FLINK-24038 [1] led to a reduction of the curator/k8s client > leader > > >> > election requests by having a single leader election per JM rather > than > > >> > individual once per RPCEndpoint. We still need to have one record > per > > >> > component/RPCEndpoint (i.e. Dispatcher, RM, JobMaster instances, > ...), > > >> > though, because we need to save the address for RPC calls > (Akka/Pekko) > > >> per > > >> > component (each JobMaster has its own RPC endpoint with a dedicated > > >> port). > > >> > That is why we cannot get rid of the individual entries/znodes per > job. > > >> > > > >> > - An alternative for this FLIP's proposal would be to stick to the > > >> current > > >> > HighAvailabilityServices interface. We could come up with a new > > >> > implementation that does provide Standalone instances of what you > call > > >> > PersistentServices in this FLIP. That would reduce the efforts that > come > > >> > with refactoring the HighAvailabilityServices interface. It should > be > > >> > discussed here as an alternative and probably mentioned in the FLIP > as a > > >> > rejected alternative if the community agrees. > > >> > > > >> > - From a conceptual point of view, splitting the > > >> HighAvailabilityServices > > >> > into LeaderElectionService and PersistentServices (I'm wondering > whether > > >> > something like JobHighAvailabilityServices would be more descriptive > > >> here. > > >> > The word "persistence" is a bit ambiguous and can also be used in > > >> scenarios > > >> > other than HA) makes sense in my opinion. One hint why separating > this > > >> big > > >> > interface HighAvailabilityServices into two smaller interfaces would > > >> make > > >> > sense is the fact that there is a test > > >> > implementation EmbeddedHaServicesWithLeadershipControl right now > that > > >> > provides embedded HA with helper methods to control the > LeaderElection > > >> in > > >> > ITCases. It is a workaround to get access to leader election. With > two > > >> > separate interfaces, we could make it easier to test these things. > > >> > > > >> > - I'm not too sure about the proposed class hierarchy of FLIP-403: > > >> > - What are the semantics of the "MaterialProvider". The name > doesn't > > >> give > > >> > me any hints on the interface/class purpose. There could be some > > >> > description for this component being added to the FLIP. But on > another > > >> > note: I don't see why the PersistenceServices needs to have access > to > > >> the > > >> > MaterialProvider. I feel like there shouldn't be a component that's > > >> shared > > >> > between the LeaderElectionService and the PersistenceServices. > > >> > - Alternative: What about coming up with a factory interface > > >> > HighAvailabilityServicesFactory which provides two methods: > > >> > createLeaderElectionService & createPersistenceServices. The factory > > >> > wouldn't need to keep any instances (as suggested by this FLIP's > > >> > HighAvailabilityServices component. It's a plain factory component > that > > >> > creates instances. The corresponding ZooKeeper/k8s implementation > would > > >> > hold the client instance (which is the only thing that should be > shared > > >> > between the LeaderElectionService and the PersistenceServices > > >> > implementations). The factory would live in the ClusterEntrypoint. > Any > > >> > cleanup of HA data would be covered by the > > >> > LeaderElection|PersistenceServices, individually. > > >> > > > >> > Looking forward to your opinions. > > >> > Best, > > >> > Matthias > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 1:23 PM Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > I would treat refactoring as a technical debt... > > >> > > > > >> > > Sorry I don't quite get the needs of the refactoring work. > > >> > > > > >> > > The refactoring work brings benefits if there are requirements to > > >> combine > > >> > > different leader election services and persistence services. > > >> > > The answer in this FLIP is to combine DefaultLeaderServices and > > >> > > EmbeddedPersistenceServices. But I'm concerned that, if the goal > is to > > >> > > avoid the cost of job recovery, disable the persistence of the > overall > > >> > > cluster might be an overkill. e.g. if later we want the cluster > > >> partitions > > >> > > to be recovered after JM failover? > > >> > > > > >> > > Yet I do not think of the needs of other new combinations at the > > >> moment, > > >> > > e.g. a non-HA leader election service with an HA persistence > service, > > >> > > a ZK leader election service with a K8s persistence service. > Maybe you > > >> > > have some good cases for it? > > >> > > > > >> > > TBH, the current class structure looks simpler to me. I'm also > > >> wondering > > >> > > whether it's possible to merge StandaloneHaServices with > > >> > > EmbeddedHaServices, > > >> > > because the latter one is a special case(all components in the > same > > >> > > process) > > >> > > of the former one. > > >> > > > > >> > > > it still involves creating a znode or writing to the configmap > > >> > > for each job > > >> > > > > >> > > Is it possible to avoid the cost? My gut feeling is that these > actions > > >> > > are not necessary after Flink does leader election for the overall > > >> master > > >> > > process. > > >> > > > > >> > > > such as checkpoint and blob storage except for the job graph > store > > >> > > > > >> > > How about disabling the checkpoint to avoid the cost? I know the > cost > > >> is > > >> > > there > > >> > > even if we disable the checkpoint at the moment. But I think it > can be > > >> > > fixed. > > >> > > Checkpoint is not needed if job recovery is not needed, the > concepts > > >> are > > >> > > highly related. > > >> > > > > >> > > Regarding blob storage, I'm not sure whether it's good to disable > HA > > >> for > > >> > > it. > > >> > > If HA is disabled, the jobmanager needs to directly participate in > > >> all blob > > >> > > shipping work which may result in a hot-spot. > > >> > > > > >> > > WDYT? > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > Zhu > > >> > > > > >> > > Yangze Guo <karma...@gmail.com> 于2024年1月9日周二 10:55写道： > > >> > > > > >> > > > Thank you for your comments, Zhu! > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 1. I would treat refactoring as a technical debt and a side > effect > > >> of > > >> > > > this FLIP. The idea is inspired by Matthias' comments in [1]. It > > >> > > > suggests having a single implementation of > HighAvailabilityServices > > >> > > > that requires a factory method for persistence services and > leader > > >> > > > services. After this, we will achieve a clearer class hierarchy > for > > >> > > > HAServices and eliminate code duplication. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 2. While FLINK-24038 does eliminate the leader election time > cost > > >> for > > >> > > > each job, it still involves creating a znode or writing to the > > >> > > > configmap for each job, which can negatively impact performance > > >> under > > >> > > > higher workloads. This also applies to all other persistence > > >> services > > >> > > > such as checkpoint and blob storage except for the job graph > store. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > WDYT? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > [1] > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-31816?focusedCommentId=17741054&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17741054 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Best, > > >> > > > Yangze Guo > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 7:37 PM Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for creating the FLIP and starting the discussion, > Yangze. > > >> It > > >> > > > makes > > >> > > > > sense to me to improve the job submission performance in OLAP > > >> > > scenarios. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I have a few questions regarding the proposed changes: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 1. How about skipping the job graph persistence if the > proposed > > >> config > > >> > > > > 'high-availability.enable-job-recovery' is set to false? In > this > > >> way, > > >> > > > > we do not need to do the refactoring work. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 2. Instead of using different HA services for Dispatcher and > > >> JobMaster. > > >> > > > > Can we leverage the work of FLINK-24038 to eliminate the > leader > > >> > > election > > >> > > > > time cost of each job? Honestly I had thought it was already > the > > >> truth > > >> > > > but > > >> > > > > seems it is not. This improvement can also benefit non-OLAP > jobs. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > Zhu > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Yangze Guo <karma...@gmail.com> 于2024年1月8日周一 17:11写道： > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks for the pointer, Rui! > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I have reviewed FLIP-383, and based on my understanding, > this > > >> feature > > >> > > > > > should be enabled by default for batch jobs in the future. > > >> Therefore, > > >> > > > > > +1 for checking the parameters and issuing log warnings when > > >> the user > > >> > > > > > explicitly configures execution.batch.job-recovery.enabled > to > > >> true. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > +1 for high-availability.job-recovery.enabled, which would > be > > >> more > > >> > > > > > suitable with YAML hierarchy. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > > Yangze Guo > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 3:43 PM Rui Fan < > 1996fan...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks to Yangze driving this proposal! > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Overall looks good to me! This proposal is useful for > > >> > > > > > > the performance when the job doesn't need the failover. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I have some minor questions: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 1. How does it work with FLIP-383[1]? > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > This FLIP introduces a > high-availability.enable-job-recovery, > > >> > > > > > > and FLIP-383 introduces a > > >> execution.batch.job-recovery.enabled. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > IIUC, when high-availability.enable-job-recovery is false, > > >> the job > > >> > > > > > > cannot recover even if > execution.batch.job-recovery.enabled = > > >> true, > > >> > > > > > > right? > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If so, could we check some parameters and warn some logs? > Or > > >> > > > > > > disable the execution.batch.job-recovery.enabled directly > when > > >> > > > > > > high-availability.enable-job-recovery = false. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2. Could we rename it to > > >> high-availability.job-recovery.enabled to > > >> > > > unify > > >> > > > > > > the naming? > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > WDYT? > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/QwqZE > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > > > Rui > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 2:04 PM Yangze Guo < > karma...@gmail.com > > >> > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks for your comment, Yong. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Here are my thoughts on the splitting of > > >> HighAvailableServices: > > >> > > > > > > > Firstly, I would treat this separation as a result of > > >> technical > > >> > > > debt > > >> > > > > > > > and a side effect of the FLIP. In order to achieve a > cleaner > > >> > > > interface > > >> > > > > > > > hierarchy for High Availability before Flink 2.0, the > design > > >> > > > decision > > >> > > > > > > > should not be limited to OLAP scenarios. > > >> > > > > > > > I agree that the current HAServices can be divided > based on > > >> > > either > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > actual target (cluster & job) or the type of > functionality > > >> > > (leader > > >> > > > > > > > election & persistence). From a conceptual perspective, > I > > >> do not > > >> > > > see > > >> > > > > > > > one approach being better than the other. However, I > have > > >> chosen > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > current separation for a clear separation of concerns. > After > > >> > > > FLIP-285, > > >> > > > > > > > each process has a dedicated LeaderElectionService > > >> responsible > > >> > > for > > >> > > > > > > > leader election of all the components within it. This > > >> > > > > > > > LeaderElectionService has its own lifecycle management. > If > > >> we > > >> > > were > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > split the HAServices into > 'ClusterHighAvailabilityService' > > >> and > > >> > > > > > > > 'JobHighAvailabilityService', we would need to couple > the > > >> > > lifecycle > > >> > > > > > > > management of these two interfaces, as they both rely > on the > > >> > > > > > > > LeaderElectionService and other relevant classes. This > > >> coupling > > >> > > and > > >> > > > > > > > implicit design assumption will increase the complexity > and > > >> > > testing > > >> > > > > > > > difficulty of the system. WDYT? > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > > > > Yangze Guo > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 12:08 PM Yong Fang < > > >> zjur...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks Yangze for starting this discussion. I have one > > >> comment: > > >> > > > why > > >> > > > > > do we > > >> > > > > > > > > need to abstract two services as `LeaderServices` and > > >> > > > > > > > > `PersistenceServices`? > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > From the content, the purpose of this FLIP is to make > job > > >> > > > failover > > >> > > > > > more > > >> > > > > > > > > lightweight, so it would be more appropriate to > abstract > > >> two > > >> > > > > > services as > > >> > > > > > > > > `ClusterHighAvailabilityService` and > > >> > > `JobHighAvailabilityService` > > >> > > > > > instead > > >> > > > > > > > > of `LeaderServices` and `PersistenceServices` based on > > >> leader > > >> > > and > > >> > > > > > store. > > >> > > > > > > > In > > >> > > > > > > > > this way, we can create a `JobHighAvailabilityService` > > >> that > > >> > > has a > > >> > > > > > leader > > >> > > > > > > > > service and store for the job that meets the > requirements > > >> based > > >> > > > on > > >> > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > configuration in the zk/k8s high availability service. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > > > > > Fang Yong > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 8:10 PM xiangyu feng < > > >> > > > xiangyu...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks Yangze for restart this discussion. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > +1 for the overall idea. By splitting the > > >> > > > HighAvailabilityServices > > >> > > > > > into > > >> > > > > > > > > > LeaderServices and PersistenceServices, we may > support > > >> > > > configuring > > >> > > > > > > > > > different storage behind them in the future. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > We did run into real problems in production where > too > > >> much > > >> > > job > > >> > > > > > > > metadata was > > >> > > > > > > > > > being stored on ZK, causing system instability. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Yangze Guo <karma...@gmail.com> 于2023年12月29日周五 > 10:21写道： > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the response, Zhanghao. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > PersistenceServices sounds good to me. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Yangze Guo > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 11:30 AM Zhanghao Chen > > >> > > > > > > > > > > <zhanghao.c...@outlook.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for driving this effort, Yangze! The > proposal > > >> > > > overall > > >> > > > > > LGTM. > > >> > > > > > > > > > Other > > >> > > > > > > > > > > from the throughput enhancement in the OLAP > scenario, > > >> the > > >> > > > > > separation > > >> > > > > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > > > > > leader election/discovery services and the > metadata > > >> > > > persistence > > >> > > > > > > > services > > >> > > > > > > > > > > will also make the HA impl clearer and easier to > > >> maintain. > > >> > > > Just a > > >> > > > > > > > minor > > >> > > > > > > > > > > comment on naming: would it better to rename > > >> > > > PersistentServices > > >> > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > > > PersistenceServices, as usually we put a noun > before > > >> > > > Services? > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Zhanghao Chen > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Yangze Guo <karma...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 17:33 > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > To: dev <dev@flink.apache.org> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [DISCUSS] FLIP-403: High Availability > > >> Services > > >> > > for > > >> > > > > > OLAP > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Scenarios > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, there, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > We would like to start a discussion thread on > > >> "FLIP-403: > > >> > > > High > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Availability Services for OLAP Scenarios"[1]. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Currently, Flink's high availability service > > >> consists of > > >> > > > two > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms: leader election/retrieval services > for > > >> > > > JobManager > > >> > > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > persistent services for job metadata. However, > these > > >> > > > > > mechanisms are > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > set up in an "all or nothing" manner. In OLAP > > >> scenarios, > > >> > > we > > >> > > > > > > > typically > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > only require leader election/retrieval services > for > > >> > > > JobManager > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > components since jobs usually do not have a > restart > > >> > > > strategy. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, the persistence of job states can > > >> > > negatively > > >> > > > > > impact > > >> > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > cluster's throughput, especially for short query > > >> jobs. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > To address these issues, this FLIP proposes > > >> splitting the > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > HighAvailabilityServices into LeaderServices and > > >> > > > > > > > PersistentServices, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > and enable users to independently configure the > high > > >> > > > > > availability > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > strategies specifically related to jobs. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Please find more details in the FLIP wiki > document > > >> [1]. > > >> > > > Looking > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > forward to your feedback. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-403+High+Availability+Services+for+OLAP+Scenarios > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Yangze Guo > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >
