Hi Thomas, it's like you said. The first version will not support rescaling and mostly addresses the concerns about making little to no progress because of frequent crashes.
The main reason is that we cannot guarantee the ordering of non-keyed data (and even keyed data in some weird cases) when rescaling currently. We have a general concept to address that, which would also enable dynamic rescaling in the future, but that would make the changes even bigger and we would not have any version ready for 1.11. The current plan, of course, is to continue improving unaligned checkpoints immediately after release, such that we have the full feature set for 1.12. Potentially, unaligned checkpoints (with timeouts) would even become the default option. On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:14 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 > > Thanks for putting this together, looking forward to the experimental > support in the next release. > > One clarification: since the MVP won't support rescaling, does it imply > that savepoints will always use aligned checkpointing? If so, this would > still block the user from taking a savepoint and resume with increased > parallelism to resolve a prolonged/permanent backpressure condition? > > Thanks, > Thomas > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 6:33 AM Arvid Heise <ar...@ververica.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to start the vote for FLIP-76 [1], which is discussed and > > reached a consensus in the discussion thread [2]. > > > > The vote will be open until March. 13th (72h), unless there is an > objection > > or not enough votes. > > > > Thanks, > > Arvid > > > > [1] > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-76%3A+Unaligned+Checkpoints > > [2] > > > > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-76-Unaligned-checkpoints-td33651.html > > >
