Hi,
+1 for the general proposal from my side. It would be a nice workaround
flatMaps, WindowOperators and large records issues with unaligned
checkpoints.
> The first task is about ignoring max buffers per channel. This means if
> we request a memory segment from LocalBufferPool and the
> maxBuffersPerChannel is reached for this channel, we just ignore that
> and continue to allocate buffer while LocalBufferPool has it(it is
> actually not a overdraft).
Do you mean to ignore it while processing records, but keep using
`maxBuffersPerChannel` when calculating the availability of the output?
> The second task is about the real overdraft. I am pretty convinced now
> that we, unfortunately, need configuration for limitation of overdraft
> number(because it is not ok if one subtask allocates all buffers of one
> TaskManager considering that several different jobs can be submitted on
> this TaskManager). So idea is to have
> maxOverdraftBuffersPerPartition(technically to say per LocalBufferPool).
> In this case, when a limit of buffers in LocalBufferPool is reached,
> LocalBufferPool can request additionally from NetworkBufferPool up to
> maxOverdraftBuffersPerPartition buffers.
+1 for just having this as a separate configuration. Is it a big problem
that legacy sources would be ignoring it? Note that we already have
effectively hardcoded a single overdraft buffer.
`LocalBufferPool#checkAvailability` checks if there is a single buffer
available and this works the same for all tasks (including legacy source
tasks). Would it be a big issue if we changed it to check if at least
"overdraft number of buffers are available", where "overdraft number" is
configurable, instead of the currently hardcoded value of "1"?
Best,
Piotrek
pt., 29 kwi 2022 o 17:04 rui fan <1996fan...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> Let me add some information about the LegacySource.
>
> If we want to disable the overdraft buffer for LegacySource.
> Could we add the enableOverdraft in LocalBufferPool?
> The default value is false. If the getAvailableFuture is called,
> change enableOverdraft=true. It indicates whether there are
> checks isAvailable elsewhere.
>
> I don't think it is elegant, but it's safe. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Thanks
> fanrui
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:23 PM rui fan <1996fan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for your quick response.
> >
> > For question 1/2/3, we think they are clear. We just need to discuss the
> > default value in PR.
> >
> > For the legacy source, you are right. It's difficult for general
> > implementation.
> > Currently, we implement ensureRecordWriterIsAvailable() in
> > SourceFunction.SourceContext. And call it in our common LegacySource,
> > e.g: FlinkKafkaConsumer. Over 90% of our Flink jobs consume kafka, so
> > fixing FlinkKafkaConsumer solved most of our problems.
> >
> > Core code:
> > ```
> > public void ensureRecordWriterIsAvailable() {
> > if (recordWriter == null
> > ||
> > !configuration.getBoolean(ExecutionCheckpointingOptions.ENABLE_UNALIGNED,
> > false)
> > || recordWriter.isAvailable()) {
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > CompletableFuture<?> resumeFuture =
> recordWriter.getAvailableFuture();
> > try {
> > resumeFuture.get();
> > } catch (Throwable ignored) {
> > }
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > LegacySource calls sourceContext.ensureRecordWriterIsAvailable()
> > before synchronized (checkpointLock) and collects records.
> > Please let me know if there is a better solution.
> >
> > Thanks
> > fanrui
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 9:45 PM Anton Kalashnikov <kaa....@yandex.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> -- 1. Do you mean split this into two JIRAs or two PRs or two commits
> in a
> >> PR?
> >>
> >> Perhaps, the separated ticket will be better since this task has fewer
> >> questions but we should find a solution for LegacySource first.
> >>
> >> -- 2. For the first task, if the flink user disables the Unaligned
> >> Checkpoint, do we ignore max buffers per channel? Because the
> >> overdraft
> >> isn't useful for the Aligned Checkpoint, it still needs to wait for
> >> downstream Task to consume.
> >>
> >> I think that the logic should be the same for AC and UC. As I
> understand,
> >> the overdraft maybe is not really helpful for AC but it doesn't make it
> >> worse as well.
> >>
> >> 3. For the second task
> >> -- - The default value of maxOverdraftBuffersPerPartition may also
> >> need
> >> to be discussed.
> >>
> >> I think it should be a pretty small value or even 0 since it kind of
> >> optimization and user should understand what they do(especially if we
> >> implement the first task).
> >>
> >> -- - If the user disables the Unaligned Checkpoint, can we set the
> >> maxOverdraftBuffersPerPartition=0? Because the overdraft isn't
> >> useful for
> >> the Aligned Checkpoint.
> >>
> >> The same answer that above, if the overdraft doesn't make degradation
> for
> >> the Aligned Checkpoint I don't think that we should make difference
> between
> >> AC and UC.
> >>
> >> 4. For the legacy source
> >> -- - If enabling the Unaligned Checkpoint, it uses up to
> >> maxOverdraftBuffersPerPartition buffers.
> >> - If disabling the UC, it doesn't use the overdraft buffer.
> >> - Do you think it's ok?
> >>
> >> Ideally, I don't want to use overdraft for LegacySource at all since it
> >> can lead to undesirable results especially if the limit is high. At
> least,
> >> as I understand, it will always work in overdraft mode and it will
> borrow
> >> maxOverdraftBuffersPerPartition buffers from the global pool which can
> lead
> >> to degradation of other subtasks on the same TaskManager.
> >>
> >> -- - Actually, we added the checkAvailable logic for LegacySource
> in
> >> our
> >> internal version. It works well.
> >>
> >> I don't really understand how it is possible for general case
> considering
> >> that each user has their own implementation of LegacySourceOperator
> >>
> >> -- 5. For the benchmark, do you have any suggestions? I submitted the
> PR
> >> [1].
> >>
> >> I haven't looked at it yet, but I'll try to do it soon.
> >>
> >>
> >> 29.04.2022 14:14, rui fan пишет:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for your feedback. I have a servel of questions.
> >> >
> >> > 1. Do you mean split this into two JIRAs or two PRs or two commits
> >> in a
> >> > PR?
> >> > 2. For the first task, if the flink user disables the Unaligned
> >> > Checkpoint, do we ignore max buffers per channel? Because the
> >> overdraft
> >> > isn't useful for the Aligned Checkpoint, it still needs to wait
> for
> >> > downstream Task to consume.
> >> > 3. For the second task
> >> > - The default value of maxOverdraftBuffersPerPartition may also
> >> need
> >> > to be discussed.
> >> > - If the user disables the Unaligned Checkpoint, can we set the
> >> > maxOverdraftBuffersPerPartition=0? Because the overdraft isn't
> >> useful for
> >> > the Aligned Checkpoint.
> >> > 4. For the legacy source
> >> > - If enabling the Unaligned Checkpoint, it uses up to
> >> > maxOverdraftBuffersPerPartition buffers.
> >> > - If disabling the UC, it doesn't use the overdraft buffer.
> >> > - Do you think it's ok?
> >> > - Actually, we added the checkAvailable logic for LegacySource
> >> in our
> >> > internal version. It works well.
> >> > 5. For the benchmark, do you have any suggestions? I submitted the
> >> PR
> >> > [1].
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-benchmarks/pull/54
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > fanrui
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 7:41 PM Anton Kalashnikov <kaa....@yandex.com
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> We discuss about it a little with Dawid Wysakowicz. Here is some
> >> >> conclusion:
> >> >>
> >> >> First of all, let's split this into two tasks.
> >> >>
> >> >> The first task is about ignoring max buffers per channel. This means
> if
> >> >> we request a memory segment from LocalBufferPool and the
> >> >> maxBuffersPerChannel is reached for this channel, we just ignore that
> >> >> and continue to allocate buffer while LocalBufferPool has it(it is
> >> >> actually not a overdraft).
> >> >>
> >> >> The second task is about the real overdraft. I am pretty convinced
> now
> >> >> that we, unfortunately, need configuration for limitation of
> overdraft
> >> >> number(because it is not ok if one subtask allocates all buffers of
> one
> >> >> TaskManager considering that several different jobs can be submitted
> on
> >> >> this TaskManager). So idea is to have
> >> >> maxOverdraftBuffersPerPartition(technically to say per
> >> LocalBufferPool).
> >> >> In this case, when a limit of buffers in LocalBufferPool is reached,
> >> >> LocalBufferPool can request additionally from NetworkBufferPool up to
> >> >> maxOverdraftBuffersPerPartition buffers.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> But it is still not clear how to handle LegacySource since it
> actually
> >> >> works as unlimited flatmap and it will always work in overdraft mode
> >> >> which is not a target. So we still need to think about that.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 29.04.2022 11:11, rui fan пишет:
> >> >>> Hi Anton Kalashnikov,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I think you agree with we should limit the maximum number of
> overdraft
> >> >>> segments that each LocalBufferPool can apply for, right?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I prefer to hard code the maxOverdraftBuffers due to don't add the
> new
> >> >>> configuration. And I hope to hear more from the community.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Best wishes
> >> >>> fanrui
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 12:39 PM rui fan <1996fan...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Hi Anton Kalashnikov,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Thanks for your very clear reply, I think you are totally right.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The 'maxBuffersNumber - buffersInUseNumber' can be used as the
> >> >>>> overdraft buffer, it won't need the new buffer configuration.Flink
> >> users
> >> >>>> can turn up the maxBuffersNumber to control the overdraft buffer
> >> size.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Also, I‘d like to add some information. For safety, we should limit
> >> the
> >> >>>> maximum number of overdraft segments that each LocalBufferPool
> >> >>>> can apply for.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Why do we limit it?
> >> >>>> Some operators don't check the `recordWriter.isAvailable` during
> >> >>>> processing records, such as LegacySource. I have mentioned it in
> >> >>>> FLINK-26759 [1]. I'm not sure if there are other cases.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> If don't add the limitation, the LegacySource will use up all
> >> remaining
> >> >>>> memory in the NetworkBufferPool when the backpressure is severe.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> How to limit it?
> >> >>>> I prefer to hard code the
> `maxOverdraftBuffers=numberOfSubpartitions`
> >> >>>> in the constructor of LocalBufferPool. The maxOverdraftBuffers is
> >> just
> >> >>>> for safety, and it should be enough for most flink jobs. Or we can
> >> set
> >> >>>> `maxOverdraftBuffers=Math.max(numberOfSubpartitions, 10)` to handle
> >> >>>> some jobs of low parallelism.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Also if user don't enable the Unaligned Checkpoint, we can set
> >> >>>> maxOverdraftBuffers=0 in the constructor of LocalBufferPool.
> Because
> >> >>>> the overdraft isn't useful for the Aligned Checkpoint.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks a lot.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-26759
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Best wishes
> >> >>>> fanrui
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 12:29 AM Anton Kalashnikov <
> >> kaa....@yandex.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Hi fanrui,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Thanks for creating the FLIP.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> In general, I think the overdraft is good idea and it should help
> in
> >> >>>>> described above cases. Here are my thoughts about configuration:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Please, correct me if I am wrong but as I understand right now we
> >> have
> >> >>>>> following calculation.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> maxBuffersNumber(per TaskManager) = Network memory(calculated via
> >> >>>>> taskmanager.memory.network.fraction,
> taskmanager.memory.network.min,
> >> >>>>> taskmanager.memory.network.max and total memory size) /
> >> >>>>> taskmanager.memory.segment-size.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> requiredBuffersNumber(per TaskManager) = (exclusive buffers *
> >> >>>>> parallelism + floating buffers) * subtasks number in TaskManager
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> buffersInUseNumber = real number of buffers which used at current
> >> >>>>> moment(always <= requiredBuffersNumber)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Ideally requiredBuffersNumber should be equal to maxBuffersNumber
> >> which
> >> >>>>> allows Flink work predictibly. But if requiredBuffersNumber >
> >> >>>>> maxBuffersNumber sometimes it is also fine(but not good) since not
> >> all
> >> >>>>> required buffers really mandatory(e.g. it is ok if Flink can not
> >> >>>>> allocate floating buffers)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> But if maxBuffersNumber > requiredBuffersNumber, as I understand
> >> Flink
> >> >>>>> just never use these leftovers buffers(maxBuffersNumber -
> >> >>>>> requiredBuffersNumber). Which I propose to use. ( we can actualy
> use
> >> >>>>> even difference 'requiredBuffersNumber - buffersInUseNumber' since
> >> if
> >> >>>>> one TaskManager contains several operators including 'window'
> which
> >> can
> >> >>>>> temporally borrow buffers from the global pool).
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> My proposal, more specificaly(it relates only to requesting
> buffers
> >> >>>>> during processing single record while switching to unavalability
> >> >> between
> >> >>>>> records should be the same as we have it now):
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> * If one more buffer requested but maxBuffersPerChannel reached,
> >> then
> >> >>>>> just ignore this limitation and allocate this buffers from any
> >> >>>>> place(from LocalBufferPool if it has something yet otherwise from
> >> >>>>> NetworkBufferPool)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> * If LocalBufferPool exceeds limit, then temporally allocate it
> from
> >> >>>>> NetworkBufferPool while it has something to allocate
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Maybe I missed something and this solution won't work, but I like
> it
> >> >>>>> since on the one hand, it work from the scratch without any
> >> >>>>> configuration, on the other hand, it can be configuration by
> >> changing
> >> >>>>> proportion of maxBuffersNumber and requiredBuffersNumber.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> The last thing that I want to say, I don't really want to
> implement
> >> new
> >> >>>>> configuration since even now it is not clear how to correctly
> >> configure
> >> >>>>> network buffers with existing configuration and I don't want to
> >> >>>>> complicate it, especially if it will be possible to resolve the
> >> problem
> >> >>>>> automatically(as described above).
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> So is my understanding about network memory/buffers correct?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> --
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Best regards,
> >> >>>>> Anton Kalashnikov
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> 27.04.2022 07:46, rui fan пишет:
> >> >>>>>> Hi everyone,
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Unaligned Checkpoint (FLIP-76 [1]) is a major feature of Flink.
> It
> >> >>>>>> effectively solves the problem of checkpoint timeout or slow
> >> >>>>>> checkpoint when backpressure is severe.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> We found that UC(Unaligned Checkpoint) does not work well when
> the
> >> >>>>>> back pressure is severe and multiple output buffers are required
> to
> >> >>>>>> process a single record. FLINK-14396 [2] also mentioned this
> issue
> >> >>>>>> before. So we propose the overdraft buffer to solve it.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I created FLINK-26762[3] and FLIP-227[4] to detail the overdraft
> >> >>>>>> buffer mechanism. After discussing with Anton Kalashnikov, there
> >> are
> >> >>>>>> still some points to discuss:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> * There are already a lot of buffer-related configurations.
> Do
> >> we
> >> >>>>>> need to add a new configuration for the overdraft buffer?
> >> >>>>>> * Where should the overdraft buffer use memory?
> >> >>>>>> * If the overdraft-buffer uses the memory remaining in the
> >> >>>>>> NetworkBufferPool, no new configuration needs to be added.
> >> >>>>>> * If adding a new configuration:
> >> >>>>>> o Should we set the overdraft-memory-size at the TM level
> >> or
> >> >> the
> >> >>>>>> Task level?
> >> >>>>>> o Or set overdraft-buffers to indicate the number of
> >> >>>>>> memory-segments that can be overdrawn.
> >> >>>>>> o What is the default value? How to set sensible
> defaults?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Currently, I implemented a POC [5] and verified it using
> >> >>>>>> flink-benchmarks [6]. The POC sets overdraft-buffers at Task
> level,
> >> >>>>>> and default value is 10. That is: each LocalBufferPool can
> >> overdraw up
> >> >>>>>> to 10 memory-segments.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback!
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >> >>>>>> fanrui
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> [1]
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-76%3A+Unaligned+Checkpoints
> >> >>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-14396
> >> >>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-26762
> >> >>>>>> [4]
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-227%3A+Support+overdraft+buffer
> >> >>>>>> [5]
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/1996fanrui/flink/commit/c7559d94767de97c24ea8c540878832138c8e8fe
> >> >>>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/flink-benchmarks/pull/54
> >> >> --
> >> >>
> >> >> Best regards,
> >> >> Anton Kalashnikov
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Anton Kalashnikov
> >>
> >>
>
