Thanks for the quick fix, Yu. the PR of FLINK-11972 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11972> has been merged.
Cheers, Jincheng Yu Li <car...@gmail.com> 于2019年3月21日周四 上午7:23写道： > -1, observed stably failure on streaming bucketing end-to-end test case in > two different environments (Linux/MacOS) when running with both shaded > hadoop-2.8.3 jar file > <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1213/org/apache/flink/flink-shaded-hadoop2-uber/2.8.3-1.8.0/flink-shaded-hadoop2-uber-2.8.3-1.8.0.jar> > and hadoop-2.8.5 dist > <http://archive.apache.org/dist/hadoop/core/hadoop-2.8.5/>, while both > env could pass with hadoop 2.6.5. More details please refer to this > comment > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11972?focusedCommentId=16797614&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16797614> > in FLINK-11972. > > Best Regards, > Yu > > > On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 04:25, jincheng sun <sunjincheng...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thanks for the quick fix Aljoscha! The FLINK-11971 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11971> has been merged. >> >> Cheers, >> Jincheng >> >> Piotr Nowojski <pi...@ververica.com> 于2019年3月21日周四 上午12:29写道： >> >>> -1 from my side due to performance regression found in the master branch >>> since Jan 29th. >>> >>> In 10% JVM forks it was causing huge performance drop in some of the >>> benchmarks (up to 30-50% reduced throughput), which could mean that one out >>> of 10 task managers could be affected by it. Today we have merged a fix for >>> it [1]. First benchmark run was promising [2], but we have to wait until >>> tomorrow to make sure that the problem was definitely resolved. If that’s >>> the case, I would recommend including it in 1.8.0, because we really do not >>> know how big of performance regression this issue can be in the real world >>> scenarios. >>> >>> Regarding the second regression from mid February. We have found the >>> responsible commit and this one is probably just a false positive. Because >>> of the nature some of the benchmarks, they are running with low number of >>> records (300k). The apparent performance regression was caused by higher >>> initialisation time. When I temporarily increased the number of records to >>> 2M, the regression was gone. Together with Till and Stefan Richter we >>> discussed the potential impact of this longer initialisation time (in the >>> case of said benchmarks initialisation time increased from 70ms to 120ms) >>> and we think that it’s not a critical issue, that doesn’t have to block the >>> release. Nevertheless there might some follow up work for this. >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/8020 >>> [2] http://codespeed.dak8s.net:8000/timeline/?ben=tumblingWindow&env=2 >>> >>> Piotr Nowojski >>> >>> On 20 Mar 2019, at 10:09, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Jincheng! It would be very good to fix those but as you said, I >>> would say they are not blockers. >>> >>> On 20. Mar 2019, at 09:47, Kurt Young <ykt...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> Checked items: >>> - checked checksums and GPG files >>> - verified that the source archives do not contains any binaries >>> - checked that all POM files point to the same version >>> - build from source successfully >>> >>> Best, >>> Kurt >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:12 PM jincheng sun <sunjincheng...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Aljoscha&All, >>>> >>>> When I did the `end-to-end` test for RC3 under Mac OS, I found the >>>> following two problems: >>>> >>>> 1. The verification returned for different `minikube status` is is not >>>> enough for the robustness. The strings returned by different versions of >>>> different platforms are different. the following misjudgment is caused: >>>> When the `Command: start_kubernetes_if_not_ruunning failed` error >>>> occurs, the minikube has actually started successfully. The core reason is >>>> that there is a bug in the `test_kubernetes_embedded_job.sh` script. See >>>> FLINK-11971 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11971> for >>>> details. >>>> >>>> 2. Since the difference between 1.8.0 and 1.7.x is that 1.8.x does not >>>> put the `hadoop-shaded` JAR integrated into the dist. It will cause an >>>> error when the end-to-end test cannot be found with `Hadoop` Related >>>> classes, such as: `java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: >>>> Lorg/apache/hadoop/fs/FileSystem`. So we need to improve the end-to-end >>>> test script, or explicitly stated in the README, i.e. end-to-end test need >>>> to add `flink-shaded-hadoop2-uber-XXXX.jar` to the classpath. See >>>> FLINK-11972 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11972> for >>>> details. >>>> >>>> I think this is not a blocker for release-1.8.0, but I think it would >>>> be better to include those commits in release-1.8 If we still have >>>> performance related bugs should be fixed. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Jincheng >>>> >>>> >>>> Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> 于2019年3月19日周二 下午7:58写道： >>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> The release process for Flink 1.8.0 is currently ongoing. Please have >>>>> a look at the thread, in case you’re interested in checking your >>>>> applications against this next release of Apache Flink and participate in >>>>> the process. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Aljoscha >>>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>> *From: *Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> >>>>> *Subject: **[VOTE] Release 1.8.0, release candidate #3* >>>>> *Date: *19. March 2019 at 12:52:50 CET >>>>> *To: *d...@flink.apache.org >>>>> *Reply-To: *d...@flink.apache.org >>>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate 3 for Flink 1.8.0, as >>>>> follows: >>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release >>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes: >>>>> * JIRA release notes [1], >>>>> * the official Apache source release and binary convenience releases >>>>> to be deployed to dist.apache.org <http://dist.apache.org/> [2], >>>>> which are signed with the key with fingerprint >>>>> F2A67A8047499BBB3908D17AA8F4FD97121D7293 [3], >>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4], >>>>> * source code tag "release-1.8.0-rc3" [5], >>>>> * website pull request listing the new release [6] >>>>> * website pull request adding announcement blog post [7]. >>>>> >>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by majority >>>>> approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Aljoscha >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315522&version=12344274 >>>>> < >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315522&version=12344274 >>>>> > >>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flink/flink-1.8.0-rc3/ < >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flink/flink-1.8.0-rc3/> >>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flink/KEYS < >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flink/KEYS> >>>>> [4] >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1214 >>>>> < >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1214> >>>>> >>>>> [5] >>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=flink.git;a=tag;h=b505c0822edd2aed7fa22ed75eca40dca1a9de42 >>>>> < >>>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=flink.git;a=tag;h=b505c0822edd2aed7fa22ed75eca40dca1a9de42> >>>>> >>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/180 < >>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/180> >>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/179 < >>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/179> >>>>> >>>>> P.S. The difference to the previous RCs 1 and 2 is very small, you can >>>>> fetch the tags and do a "git log release-1.8.0-rc1..release-1.8.0-rc3” to >>>>> see the difference in commits. Its fixes for the issues that led to the >>>>> cancellation of the previous RCs plus smaller fixes. Most >>>>> verification/testing that was carried out should apply as is to this RC. >>>>> Any functional verification that you did on previous RCs should therefore >>>>> easily carry over to this one. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>
