Thanks Thomas for opening the issue. This is indeed a useful feature to make the checkpointing more controllable.
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:36 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi vino, > > Yes, I believe we are on the same page. I created > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10074 to track it. > > Thanks, > Thomas > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:42 AM vino yang <yanghua1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > What I am saying is what you mean, maybe I am not very accurate. > > > > Thanks, vino. > > > > 2018-08-06 21:22 GMT+08:00 Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org>: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > What we are looking for is that the job does *not* restart on transient > > > checkpoint failures and we would like to cap the number of allowable > > > subsequent failures until a restart occurs. > > > > > > The reason is that every restart is a service interruption that is > > > potentially very expensive. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:09 AM vino yang <yanghua1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Till, > > > > > > > > I think the way you proposed is a solution. But I think we also can > > > provide > > > > a solution to prevent Checkpoint from failing indefinitely, in case > the > > > Job > > > > does not fail. > > > > > > > > Instead, a threshold is given to allow the checkpoint to fail a few > > > times. > > > > When this threshold is reached, we decide to let the job fail. > > > > > > > > Thanks, vino. > > > > > > > > 2018-08-06 15:14 GMT+08:00 Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > Hi Lakshmi, > > > > > > > > > > you could somewhat achieve the described behaviour by setting > > > > > setFailOnCheckpointintErrors(true) and using the > > > > > FailureRateRestartStrategy > > > > > as the restart strategy. That way checkpoint failures will trigger > a > > > job > > > > > restart (this is the downside) which is handled by the restart > > > strategy. > > > > > The FailureRateRestartStrategy allows for x failures to happen > within > > > in > > > > a > > > > > given time interval. If this number is exceeded, then the job will > > > > > terminally fail. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Till > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 4:58 AM vino yang <yanghua1...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Lakshmi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Your understanding of " > > > > > > *CheckpointConfig#setFailOnCheckpointingErrors(false)*" is > correct, > > > If > > > > > this > > > > > > is set to false, the task will only decline a the checkpoint and > > > > continue > > > > > > running. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is also a good choice to allow a number of failures to > > be > > > > set. > > > > > > Flink currently only supports whether the Task fails if the > > > checkpoint > > > > > > fails. It is not supported to configure a threshold. > > > > > > > > > > > > You can create an issue in JIRA to feedback this requirement. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, vino. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-08-04 4:28 GMT+08:00 Lakshmi Gururaja Rao <l...@lyft.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are running into intermittent checkpoint failures while > > > > > checkpointing > > > > > > to > > > > > > > S3. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As described in this thread - > > > > > > > http://apache-flink-user-mailing-list-archive.2336050. > > > > > > > n4.nabble.com/1-5-some-thing-weird-td21309.html > > > > > > > <http://apache-flink-user-mailing-list-archive.2336050. > > > > > > > n4.nabble.com/1-5-some-thing-weird-td21309.html>, > > > > > > > we see that the job restarts when it encounters such a failure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned in the thread, I see that there is an option to > not > > > fail > > > > > > tasks > > > > > > > on checkpoint errors - > > > > > > > *CheckpointConfig#setFailOnCheckpointingErrors(false)**. > > *However, > > > > > this > > > > > > > would mean that the job would continue running even in the case > > of > > > > > > > persistent checkpoint failures. Is my understanding here > correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If above is true, then is there a way to configure an allowable > > > > number > > > > > of > > > > > > > checkpoint failures? i.e. something along the lines of "Don't > > fail > > > > the > > > > > > job > > > > > > > if there are <=X number of checkpoint failures", so that *only > > > > > *transient > > > > > > > failures can be ignored. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Lakshmi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
