Thanks for bringing this up.

I am +1 on making incremental checkpoints by default for RocksDB, but not
universally for all state backends.

Besides being widely used in prod, enabling incremental checkpoint for
RocksDB by default is also a pre-requisite when enabling task-local by
default FLINK-15507 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-15507>

The incremental checkpoint for the hashmap statebackend is under review
right now. CC @ro...@ververica.com <ro...@ververica.com> , which is not a
good idea being enabled by default in the first version.

Best,

Yuan

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 7:33 PM Jiangang Liu <liujiangangp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 for the suggestion. We have use the incremental checkpoint in our
> production for a long time.
>
> Hangxiang Yu <master...@gmail.com> 于2022年6月14日周二 15:41写道:
>
> > +1
> > It's basically enabled in most scenarios in production environments.
> > For HashMapStateBackend, it will adopt a full checkpoint even if we
> enable
> > incremental checkpoint. It will also support incremental checkpoint after
> > [1]. It's compatible.
> > BTW, I think we may also need to improve the documentation of incremental
> > checkpoints which users usually ask. There are some tickets like [2][3].
> >
> > Best,
> > Hangxiang.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-21648
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-22797
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-7449
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 7:48 PM Rui Fan <1996fan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Strongly +1
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Rui Fan
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 7:35 PM Martijn Visser <
> martijnvis...@apache.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > BTW, from my knowledge, nothing would happen for
> HashMapStateBackend,
> > > > which does not support incremental checkpoint yet, when enabling
> > > > incremental checkpoints.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Yun, if no errors would occur then definitely +1 to enable it
> by
> > > > default
> > > >
> > > > Op ma 13 jun. 2022 om 12:42 schreef Alexander Fedulov <
> > > > alexan...@ververica.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > From my experience, it is actually hard to come up with use cases
> > where
> > > > > incremental checkpoints should explicitly not be enabled with the
> > > RocksDB
> > > > > state backend. If the state is so small that the full snapshots do
> > not
> > > > > have any negative impact, one should consider using
> > HashMapStateBackend
> > > > > anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Alexander Fedulov
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:26 PM Jing Ge <j...@ververica.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Glad to see the kickoff of this discussion. Thanks Lihe for
> driving
> > > > this!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have actually already discussed it internally a few months
> ago.
> > > > After
> > > > > > considering some corner cases, all agreed on enabling the
> > incremental
> > > > > > checkpoint as default.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Jing
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:17 PM Yun Tang <myas...@live.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Strongly +1 for making incremental checkpoints as default. Many
> > > users
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > ever been asking why this configuration is not enabled by
> > default.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BTW, from my knowledge, nothing would happen for
> > > HashMapStateBackend,
> > > > > > > which does not support incremental checkpoint yet, when
> enabling
> > > > > > > incremental checkpoints.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best
> > > > > > > Yun Tang
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: Martijn Visser <martijnvis...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 18:05
> > > > > > > To: dev@flink.apache.org <dev@flink.apache.org>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS ] Make state.backend.incremental as true
> by
> > > > > default
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Lihe,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What happens if we enable incremental checkpoints by default
> > while
> > > > the
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > > memory backend is HashMapStateBackend, which doesn't support
> > > > > incremental
> > > > > > > checkpoints?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Martijn
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Op ma 13 jun. 2022 om 11:59 schreef Lihe Ma <ma_l...@163.com>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi, Everyone,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would like to open a discussion on setting incremental
> > > checkpoint
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > default behavior.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Currently, the configuration of state.backend.incremental is
> > set
> > > as
> > > > > > false
> > > > > > > > by default. Incremental checkpoint has been adopted widely in
> > > > > industry
> > > > > > > > community for many years , and it is also well-tested from
> the
> > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the community discussion. Incremental checkpointing is more
> > > > > > > light-weighted:
> > > > > > > > shorter checkpoint duration, less uploaded data and less
> > resource
> > > > > > > > consumption.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In terms of backward compatibility, enable incremental
> > > > checkpointing
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > not make any data loss no matter restoring from a full
> > > > > > > checkpoint/savepoint
> > > > > > > > or an incremental checkpoint.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > FLIP-193 (Snapshot ownership)[1] has been released in 1.15,
> > > > > incremental
> > > > > > > > checkpoint no longer depends on a previous restored
> checkpoint
> > in
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > NO_CLAIM mode, which makes the checkpoint lineage much
> cleaner,
> > > it
> > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > good chance to change the configuration
> > state.backend.incremental
> > > > to
> > > > > > true
> > > > > > > > as default.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thus, based on the above discussion, I suggest to make
> > > > > > > > state.backend.incremental as true by default. What do you
> think
> > > of
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > proposal?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-193%3A+Snapshots+ownership
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Lihe Ma
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to