Hi all, As far as the issue that Chesnay mentioned that leads to a "Caused by: org.apache.flink.api.common.InvalidProgramException:" for DataSet examples with print() collect() or count() as sink, this was a semi-intensional side-effect of the application mode. Before, in these cases, the output was simply ignored. Now we have the same behavior as in the "detached" mode. I already opened a PR for the release notes (sorry for not doing it earlier although this was a known change in behavior, as mentioned it in the PR here https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/11460 ) and I will merge it today.
Cheers, Kostas On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 8:07 PM Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > Checks: > - source archive compiles > - checked artifacts in staging repo > - flink-azure-fs-hadoop-1.11.0.jar seems to have a correct NOTICE file > - versions in pom seem correct > - checked some other jars > - deployed Flink on YARN on Azure HDInsight (which uses Hadoop 3.1.1) > - Reported some tiny log sanity issue: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-18474 > - Wordcount against HDFS works > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:07 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Zhijiang, > > > > The performance degradation manifests in backpressure which leads to > > growing backlog in the source. I switched a few times between 1.10 and 1.11 > > and the behavior is consistent. > > > > The DAG is: > > > > KinesisConsumer -> (Flat Map, Flat Map, Flat Map) -------- forward > > ---------> KinesisProducer > > > > Parallelism: 160 > > No shuffle/rebalance. > > > > Checkpointing config: > > > > Checkpointing Mode Exactly Once > > Interval 10s > > Timeout 10m 0s > > Minimum Pause Between Checkpoints 10s > > Maximum Concurrent Checkpoints 1 > > Persist Checkpoints Externally Enabled (delete on cancellation) > > > > State backend: rocksdb (filesystem leads to same symptoms) > > Checkpoint size is tiny (500KB) > > > > An interesting difference to another job that I had upgraded successfully > > is the low checkpointing interval. > > > > Thanks, > > Thomas > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:02 PM Zhijiang <wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com > > .invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > Thanks for the efficient feedback. > > > > > > Regarding the suggestion of adding the release notes document, I agree > > > with your point. Maybe we should adjust the vote template accordingly in > > > the respective wiki to guide the following release processes. > > > > > > Regarding the performance regression, could you provide some more details > > > for our better measurement or reproducing on our sides? > > > E.g. I guess the topology only includes two vertexes source and sink? > > > What is the parallelism for every vertex? > > > The upstream shuffles data to the downstream via rebalance partitioner or > > > other? > > > The checkpoint mode is exactly-once with rocksDB state backend? > > > The backpressure happened in this case? > > > How much percentage regression in this case? > > > > > > Best, > > > Zhijiang > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > From:Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> > > > Send Time:2020年7月2日(星期四) 09:54 > > > To:dev <dev@flink.apache.org> > > > Subject:Re: [VOTE] Release 1.11.0, release candidate #4 > > > > > > Hi Till, > > > > > > Yes, we don't have the setting in flink-conf.yaml. > > > > > > Generally, we carry forward the existing configuration and any change to > > > default configuration values would impact the upgrade. > > > > > > Yes, since it is an incompatible change I would state it in the release > > > notes. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Thomas > > > > > > BTW I found a performance regression while trying to upgrade another > > > pipeline with this RC. It is a simple Kinesis to Kinesis job. Wasn't able > > > to pin it down yet, symptoms include increased checkpoint alignment time. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:04 AM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > > > just to confirm: When starting the image in local mode, then you don't > > > have > > > > any of the JobManager memory configuration settings configured in the > > > > effective flink-conf.yaml, right? Does this mean that you have > > explicitly > > > > removed `jobmanager.heap.size: 1024m` from the default configuration? > > If > > > > this is the case, then I believe it was more of an unintentional > > artifact > > > > that it worked before and it has been corrected now so that one needs > > to > > > > specify the memory of the JM process explicitly. Do you think it would > > > help > > > > to explicitly state this in the release notes? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Till > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 7:01 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks for preparing another RC! > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned in the previous RC thread, it would be super helpful if > > > the > > > > > release notes that are part of the documentation can be included [1]. > > > > It's > > > > > a significant time-saver to have read those first. > > > > > > > > > > I found one more non-backward compatible change that would be worth > > > > > addressing/mentioning: > > > > > > > > > > It is now necessary to configure the jobmanager heap size in > > > > > flink-conf.yaml (with either jobmanager.heap.size > > > > > or jobmanager.memory.heap.size). Why would I not want to do that > > > anyways? > > > > > Well, we set it dynamically for a cluster deployment via the > > > > > flinkk8soperator, but the container image can also be used for > > testing > > > > with > > > > > local mode (./bin/jobmanager.sh start-foreground local). That will > > fail > > > > if > > > > > the heap wasn't configured and that's how I noticed it. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-1.11/release-notes/flink-1.11.html > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 3:18 AM Zhijiang <wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com > > > > > .invalid> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #4 for the version > > > > > 1.11.0, > > > > > > 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 [2], which are signed with the key > > with > > > > > > fingerprint 2DA85B93244FDFA19A6244500653C0A2CEA00D0E [3], > > > > > > * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4], > > > > > > * source code tag "release-1.11.0-rc4" [5], > > > > > > * website pull request listing the new release and adding > > > announcement > > > > > > blog post [6]. > > > > > > > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by > > > majority > > > > > > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Release Manager > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315522&version=12346364 > > > > > > [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flink/flink-1.11.0-rc4/ > > > > > > [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flink/KEYS > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1377/ > > > > > > [5] > > https://github.com/apache/flink/releases/tag/release-1.11.0-rc4 > > > > > > [6] https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pull/352 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
