I added a roadmap section to the FLIP as suggested by Yu and Roman. Unless someone objects, I'd still consider the voting period to end tomorrow. For me, the roadmap is only a clarification of already written and discussed points.
We already have enough binding votes, but there may be concerns popping up until tomorrow. On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:00 PM Yun Gao <yungao...@aliyun.com.invalid> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > I think the PoC result has shown the effect on reducing checkpoint > time when back-pressure occurs, and I totally agree with that the feature > could be implemented in steps. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > From:Roman Khachatryan <ro...@data-artisans.com> > Send Time:2020 Mar. 12 (Thu.) 01:33 > To:dev <dev@flink.apache.org>; Zhijiang <wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> > Subject:Re: [VOTE] [FLIP-76] Unaligned checkpoints > > +1 (non-binding) > > Regarding Yu's suggestion about *Roadmap* or *Future Work* section, I think > it's a good idea. > Currently, some MVP limitations are mentioned at the end of the document, > so we can extract and expand it. > As for the recovery speed it's not a priority currently, but we could also > mention it in this section. > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 4:11 PM Zhijiang <wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com > .invalid> > wrote: > > > +1 (binding). > > > > As for David's concern of smaller buffers after recovery, I ever had a > > draft design [1] to solve this issue. > > You can take a look and leave comments if still have concerns. :) > > > > [1] > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/16_MOQymzxrKvUHXh6QFr2AAXIKt_2vPUf8vzKy4H_tU/edit > > > > Best, > > Zhijiang > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From:Piotr Nowojski <pi...@ververica.com> > > Send Time:2020 Mar. 11 (Wed.) 21:19 > > To:dev <dev@flink.apache.org> > > Subject:Re: [VOTE] [FLIP-76] Unaligned checkpoints > > > > +1 (binding). > > > > Piotrek > > > > > On 11 Mar 2020, at 09:19, David Anderson <da...@ververica.com> wrote: > > > > > > +1 I like where this is headed. > > > > > > One question: during restore, it could happen that a new task manager > is > > > configured with fewer or smaller buffers than was previously the case. > > How > > > will this be handled? > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:31 AM Arvid Heise <ar...@ververica.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> 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 > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > -- > Regards, > Roman > >
