Hi, Thanks for the update, I think distinguishing the rescaling behaviour and the desired parallelism declaration is important.
Having the ability to specify min parallelism might be useful in environments with multiple jobs: Scheduler will then have an option to stop the less suitable job. In other setups, where the job should not be stopped at all, the user can always set it to 0. Regards, Roman On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 12:58 PM Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi David, > > Thanks for the update! We consider using the new declarative resource > API for autoscaling. Currently, we treat a scaling decision as a new > deployment which means surrendering all resources to Kubernetes and > subsequently reallocating them for the rescaled deployment. The > declarative resource management API is a great step forward because it > allows us to do faster and safer rescaling. Faster, because we can > continue to run while resources are pre-allocated which minimizes > downtime. Safer, because we can't get stuck when the desired resources > are not available. > > An example with two vertices and their respective parallelisms: > v1: 50 > v2: 10 > Let's assume slot sharing is disabled, so we need 60 task slots to run > the vertices. > > If the autoscaler was to decide to scale up v1 and v2, it could do so > in a safe way by using min/max configuration: > v1: [min: 50, max: 70] > v2: [min: 10, max: 20] > This would then need 90 task slots to run at max capacity. > > I suppose we could further remove the min because it would always be > safer to scale down if resources are not available than to not run at > all [1]. In fact, I saw that the minimum bound is currently not used > in the code you posted above [2]. Is that still planned? > > -Max > > PS: Note that originally we had assumed min == max but I think that > would be a less safe scaling approach because we would get stuck > waiting for resources when they are not available, e.g. k8s resource > limits reached. > > [1] However, there might be costs involved with executing the > rescaling, e.g. for using external storage like s3, especially without > local recovery. > [2] > https://github.com/dmvk/flink/commit/5e7edcb77d8522c367bc6977f80173b14dc03ce9 > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 9:33 AM David Morávek <d...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > We had some more talks about the pre-allocation of resources with @Max, > and > > here is the final state that we've converged to for now: > > > > The vital thing to note about the new API is that it's declarative, > meaning > > we're declaring the desired state to which we want our job to converge; > If, > > after the requirements update job no longer holds the desired resources > > (fewer resources than the lower bound), it will be canceled and > transition > > back into the waiting for resources state. > > > > In some use cases, you might always want to rescale to the upper bound > > (this goes along the lines of "preallocating resources" and minimizing > the > > number of rescales, which is especially useful with the large state). > This > > can be controlled by two knobs that already exist: > > > > 1) "jobmanager.adaptive-scheduler.min-parallelism-increase" - this > affects > > a minimal parallelism increase step of a running job; we'll slightly > change > > the semantics, and we'll trigger rescaling either once this condition is > > met or when you hit the ceiling; setting this to the high number will > > ensure that you always rescale to the upper bound > > > > 2) "jobmanager.adaptive-scheduler.resource-stabilization-timeout" - for > new > > and already restarting jobs, we'll always respect this timeout, which > > allows you to wait for more resources even though you already have more > > resources than defined in the lower bound; again, in the case we reach > the > > ceiling (the upper bound), we'll transition into the executing state. > > > > > > We're still planning to dig deeper in this direction with other efforts, > > but this is already good enough and should allow us to move the FLIP > > forward. > > > > WDYT? Unless there are any objectives against the above, I'd like to > > proceed to a vote. > > > > Best, > > D. > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 5:39 PM David Morávek <d...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > @John > > > > > > This is a problem that we've spent some time trying to crack; in the > end, > > > we've decided to go against doing any upgrades to JobGraphStore from > > > JobMaster to avoid having multiple writers that are guarded by > different > > > leader election lock (Dispatcher and JobMaster might live in a > different > > > process). The contract we've decided to choose instead is leveraging > the > > > idempotency of the endpoint and having the user of the API retry in > case > > > we're unable to persist new requirements in the JobGraphStore [1]. We > > > eventually need to move JobGraphStore out of the dispatcher, but > that's way > > > out of the scope of this FLIP. The solution is a deliberate trade-off. > The > > > worst scenario is that the Dispatcher fails over in between retries, > which > > > would simply rescale the job to meet the previous resource requirements > > > (more extended unavailability of underlying HA storage would have worse > > > consequences than this). Does that answer your question? > > > > > > @Matthias > > > > > > Good catch! I'm fixing it now, thanks! > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://github.com/dmvk/flink/commit/5e7edcb77d8522c367bc6977f80173b14dc03ce9#diff-a4b690fb2c4975d25b05eb4161617af0d704a85ff7b1cad19d3c817c12f1e29cR1151 > > > > > > Best, > > > D. > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 12:24 AM John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks for the FLIP, David! > > >> > > >> I just had one small question. IIUC, the REST API PUT request will go > > >> through the new DispatcherGateway method to be handled. Then, after > > >> validation, the dispatcher would call the new JobMasterGateway method > to > > >> actually update the job. > > >> > > >> Which component will write the updated JobGraph? I just wanted to make > > >> sure it’s the JobMaster because it it were the dispatcher, there > could be a > > >> race condition with the async JobMaster method. > > >> > > >> Thanks! > > >> -John > > >> > > >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023, at 07:34, Matthias Pohl wrote: > > >> > Thanks for your clarifications, David. I don't have any additional > major > > >> > points to add. One thing about the FLIP: The RPC layer API for > updating > > >> the > > >> > JRR returns a future with a JRR? I don't see value in returning a > JRR > > >> here > > >> > since it's an idempotent operation? Wouldn't it be enough to return > > >> > CompletableFuture<Void> here? Or am I missing something? > > >> > > > >> > Matthias > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 1:48 PM Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Thanks David! If we could get the pre-allocation working as part of > > >> >> the FLIP, that would be great. > > >> >> > > >> >> Concerning the downscale case, I agree this is a special case for > the > > >> >> (single-job) application mode where we could re-allocate slots in a > > >> >> way that could leave entire task managers unoccupied which we would > > >> >> then be able to release. The goal essentially is to reduce slot > > >> >> fragmentation on scale down by packing the slots efficiently. The > > >> >> easiest way to add this optimization when running in application > mode > > >> >> would be to drop as many task managers during the restart such that > > >> >> NUM_REQUIRED_SLOTS >= NUM_AVAILABLE_SLOTS stays true. We can look > into > > >> >> this independently of the FLIP. > > >> >> > > >> >> Feel free to start the vote. > > >> >> > > >> >> -Max > > >> >> > > >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 9:10 AM David Morávek <d...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Hi everyone, > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Thanks for the feedback! I've updated the FLIP to use idempotent > PUT > > >> API > > >> >> instead of PATCH and to properly handle lower bound settings, to > > >> support > > >> >> the "pre-allocation" of the resources. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > @Max > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > How hard would it be to address this issue in the FLIP? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I've included this in the FLIP. It might not be too hard to > implement > > >> >> this in the end. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > B) drop as many superfluous task managers as needed > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I've intentionally left this part out for now because this > ultimately > > >> >> needs to be the responsibility of the Resource Manager. After all, > in > > >> the > > >> >> Session Cluster scenario, the Scheduler doesn't have the bigger > > >> picture of > > >> >> other tasks of other jobs running on those TMs. This will most > likely > > >> be a > > >> >> topic for another FLIP. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > WDYT? If there are no other questions or concerns, I'd like to > start > > >> the > > >> >> vote on Wednesday. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Best, > > >> >> > D. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:34 PM Maximilian Michels < > m...@apache.org> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> I missed that the FLIP states: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Currently, even though we’d expose the lower bound for > clarity and > > >> >> API completeness, we won’t allow setting it to any other value > than one > > >> >> until we have full support throughout the stack. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> How hard would it be to address this issue in the FLIP? > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> There is not much value to offer setting a lower bound which > won't > > >> be > > >> >> >> respected / throw an error when it is set. If we had support > for a > > >> >> >> lower bound, we could enforce a resource contract externally via > > >> >> >> setting lowerBound == upperBound. That ties back to the Rescale > API > > >> >> >> discussion we had. I want to better understand what the major > > >> concerns > > >> >> >> would be around allowing this. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Just to outline how I imagine the logic to work: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> A) The resource constraints are already met => Nothing changes > > >> >> >> B) More resources available than required => Cancel the job, > drop as > > >> >> >> many superfluous task managers as needed, restart the job > > >> >> >> C) Less resources available than required => Acquire new task > > >> >> >> managers, wait for them to register, cancel and restart the job > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> I'm open to helping out with the implementation. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> -Max > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 7:45 PM Maximilian Michels < > m...@apache.org> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Based on further discussion I had with Chesnay on this PR > [1], I > > >> think > > >> >> >> > jobs would currently go into a restarting state after the > resource > > >> >> >> > requirements have changed. This wouldn't achieve what we had > in > > >> mind, > > >> >> >> > i.e. sticking to the old resource requirements until enough > slots > > >> are > > >> >> >> > available to fulfil the new resource requirements. So this may > > >> not be > > >> >> >> > 100% what we need but it could be extended to do what we want. > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > -Max > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > [1] > > >> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/21908#discussion_r1104792362 > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 7:16 PM Maximilian Michels < > > >> m...@apache.org> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > Hi David, > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > This is awesome! Great writeup and demo. This is pretty much > > >> what we > > >> >> >> > > need for the autoscaler as part of the Flink Kubernetes > operator > > >> >> [1]. > > >> >> >> > > Scaling Flink jobs effectively is hard but fortunately we > have > > >> >> solved > > >> >> >> > > the issue as part of the Flink Kubernetes operator. The only > > >> >> critical > > >> >> >> > > piece we are missing is a better way to execute scaling > > >> decisions, > > >> >> as > > >> >> >> > > discussed in [2]. > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > Looking at your proposal, we would set lowerBound == > upperBound > > >> for > > >> >> >> > > the parallelism because we want to fully determine the > > >> parallelism > > >> >> >> > > externally based on the scaling metrics. Does that sound > right? > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > What is the timeline for these changes? Is there a JIRA? > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > Cheers, > > >> >> >> > > Max > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > [1] > > >> >> > > >> > https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-kubernetes-operator-docs-main/docs/custom-resource/autoscaler/ > > >> >> >> > > [2] > > >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2f7dgr88xtbmsohtr0f6wmsvw8sw04f5 > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 1:16 PM feng xiangyu < > > >> xiangyu...@gmail.com> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > Hi David, > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > Thanks for your reply. I think your response totally make > > >> >> sense. This > > >> >> >> > > > flip targets on declaring required resource to > ResourceManager > > >> >> instead of > > >> >> >> > > > using ResourceManager to add/remove TMs directly. > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > Best, > > >> >> >> > > > Xiangyu > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > David Morávek <david.mora...@gmail.com> 于2023年2月13日周一 > > >> 15:46写道： > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Hi everyone, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > @Shammon > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > I'm not entirely sure what "config file" you're > referring > > >> to. > > >> >> You can, of > > >> >> >> > > > > course, override the default parallelism in > > >> "flink-conf.yaml", > > >> >> but for > > >> >> >> > > > > sinks and sources, the parallelism needs to be tweaked > on > > >> the > > >> >> connector > > >> >> >> > > > > level ("WITH" statement). > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > This is something that should be achieved with tooling > > >> around > > >> >> Flink. We > > >> >> >> > > > > want to provide an API on the lowest level that > generalizes > > >> >> well. Achieving > > >> >> >> > > > > what you're describing should be straightforward with > this > > >> API. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > @Xiangyu > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Is it possible for this REST API to declare TM > resources in > > >> the > > >> >> future? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Would you like to add/remove TMs if you use an active > > >> Resource > > >> >> Manager? > > >> >> >> > > > > This would be out of the scope of this effort since it > > >> targets > > >> >> the > > >> >> >> > > > > scheduler component only (we make no assumptions about > the > > >> used > > >> >> Resource > > >> >> >> > > > > Manager). Also, the AdaptiveScheduler is only intended > to be > > >> >> used for > > >> >> >> > > > > Streaming. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > And for streaming jobs, I'm wondering if there is any > > >> >> situation we need to > > >> >> >> > > > > > rescale the TM resources of a flink cluster at first > and > > >> then > > >> >> the > > >> >> >> > > > > adaptive > > >> >> >> > > > > > scheduler will rescale the per-vertex ResourceProfiles > > >> >> accordingly. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > We plan on adding support for the ResourceProfiles > (dynamic > > >> slot > > >> >> >> > > > > allocation) as the next step. Again we won't make any > > >> >> assumptions about the > > >> >> >> > > > > used Resource Manager. In other words, this effort ends > by > > >> >> declaring > > >> >> >> > > > > desired resources to the Resource Manager. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Does that make sense? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > @Matthias > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > We've done another pass on the proposed API and > currently > > >> lean > > >> >> towards > > >> >> >> > > > > having an idempotent PUT API. > > >> >> >> > > > > - We don't care too much about multiple writers' > scenarios > > >> in > > >> >> terms of who > > >> >> >> > > > > can write an authoritative payload; this is up to the > user > > >> of > > >> >> the API to > > >> >> >> > > > > figure out > > >> >> >> > > > > - It's indeed tricky to achieve atomicity with PATCH > API; > > >> >> switching to PUT > > >> >> >> > > > > API seems to do the trick > > >> >> >> > > > > - We won't allow partial "payloads" anymore, meaning you > > >> need > > >> >> to define > > >> >> >> > > > > requirements for all vertices in the JobGraph; This is > > >> >> completely fine for > > >> >> >> > > > > the programmatic workflows. For DEBUG / DEMO purposes, > you > > >> can > > >> >> use the GET > > >> >> >> > > > > endpoint and tweak the response to avoid writing the > whole > > >> >> payload by hand. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > WDYT? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Best, > > >> >> >> > > > > D. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:21 AM feng xiangyu < > > >> >> xiangyu...@gmail.com> > > >> >> >> > > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Hi David, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Thanks for creating this flip. I think this work it is > > >> very > > >> >> useful, > > >> >> >> > > > > > especially in autoscaling scenario. I would like to > share > > >> >> some questions > > >> >> >> > > > > > from my view. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > 1, Is it possible for this REST API to declare TM > > >> resources > > >> >> in the > > >> >> >> > > > > future? > > >> >> >> > > > > > I'm asking because we are building the autoscaling > feature > > >> >> for Flink OLAP > > >> >> >> > > > > > Session Cluster in ByteDance. We need to rescale the > > >> >> cluster's resource > > >> >> >> > > > > on > > >> >> >> > > > > > TM level instead of Job level. It would be very > helpful > > >> if we > > >> >> have a REST > > >> >> >> > > > > > API for out external Autoscaling service to use. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > 2, And for streaming jobs, I'm wondering if there is > any > > >> >> situation we > > >> >> >> > > > > need > > >> >> >> > > > > > to rescale the TM resources of a flink cluster at > first > > >> and > > >> >> then the > > >> >> >> > > > > > adaptive scheduler will rescale the per-vertex > > >> >> ResourceProfiles > > >> >> >> > > > > > accordingly. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > best. > > >> >> >> > > > > > Xiangyu > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Shammon FY <zjur...@gmail.com> 于2023年2月9日周四 11:31写道： > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > Hi David > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > Thanks for your answer. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Can you elaborate more about how you'd intend to > use > > >> the > > >> >> endpoint? I > > >> >> >> > > > > > > think we can ultimately introduce a way of > re-declaring > > >> >> "per-vertex > > >> >> >> > > > > > > defaults," but I'd like to understand the use case > bit > > >> more > > >> >> first. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > For this issue, I mainly consider the consistency of > > >> user > > >> >> configuration > > >> >> >> > > > > > and > > >> >> >> > > > > > > job runtime. For sql jobs, users usually set > specific > > >> >> parallelism for > > >> >> >> > > > > > > source and sink, and set a global parallelism for > other > > >> >> operators. > > >> >> >> > > > > These > > >> >> >> > > > > > > config items are stored in a config file. For some > > >> >> high-priority jobs, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > users may want to manage them manually. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > 1. When users need to scale the parallelism, they > should > > >> >> update the > > >> >> >> > > > > > config > > >> >> >> > > > > > > file and restart flink job, which may take a long > time. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > 2. After providing the REST API, users can just > send a > > >> >> request to the > > >> >> >> > > > > job > > >> >> >> > > > > > > via REST API quickly after updating the config file. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > The configuration in the running job and config file > > >> should > > >> >> be the > > >> >> >> > > > > same. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > What do you think of this? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > best. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > Shammon > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 4:51 PM David Morávek < > > >> >> david.mora...@gmail.com> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Let's try to answer the questions one by one. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > *@ConradJam* > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > when the number of "slots" is insufficient, can > we can > > >> >> stop users > > >> >> >> > > > > > > rescaling > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > or throw something to tell user "less avaliable > > >> slots > > >> >> to upgrade, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > please > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > checkout your alivalbe slots" ? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > The main property of AdaptiveScheduler is that it > can > > >> >> adapt to > > >> >> >> > > > > > "available > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > resources," which means you're still able to make > > >> >> progress even > > >> >> >> > > > > though > > >> >> >> > > > > > > you > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > didn't get all the slots you've asked for. Let's > break > > >> >> down the pros > > >> >> >> > > > > > and > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > cons of this property. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - (plus) If you lose a TM for some reason, you can > > >> still > > >> >> recover even > > >> >> >> > > > > > if > > >> >> >> > > > > > > it > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > doesn't come back. We still need to give it some > time > > >> to > > >> >> eliminate > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > unnecessary rescaling, which can be controlled by > > >> setting > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > "resource-stabilization-timeout." > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - (plus) The resources can arrive with a > significant > > >> >> delay. For > > >> >> >> > > > > > example, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > you're unable to spawn enough TMs on time because > > >> you've > > >> >> run out of > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > resources in your k8s cluster, and you need to > wait > > >> for > > >> >> the cluster > > >> >> >> > > > > > auto > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > scaler to kick in and add new nodes to the > cluster. In > > >> >> this scenario, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > you'll be able to start making progress faster, > at the > > >> >> cost of > > >> >> >> > > > > multiple > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > rescalings (once the remaining resources arrive). > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - (plus) This plays well with the declarative > manner > > >> of > > >> >> today's > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > infrastructure. For example, you tell k8s that you > > >> need > > >> >> 10 TMs, and > > >> >> >> > > > > > > you'll > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > eventually get them. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - (minus) In the case of large state jobs, the > cost of > > >> >> multiple > > >> >> >> > > > > > > rescalings > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > might outweigh the above. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > We've already touched on the solution to this > problem > > >> on > > >> >> the FLIP. > > >> >> >> > > > > > Please > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > notice the parallelism knob being a range with a > lower > > >> >> and upper > > >> >> >> > > > > bound. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Setting both the lower and upper bound to the same > > >> value > > >> >> could give > > >> >> >> > > > > the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > behavior you're describing at the cost of giving > up > > >> some > > >> >> properties > > >> >> >> > > > > > that > > >> >> >> > > > > > > AS > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > gives you (you'd be falling back to the > > >> >> DefaultScheduler's behavior). > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > when user upgrade job-vertx-parallelism . I want > to > > >> have > > >> >> an interface > > >> >> >> > > > > > to > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > query the current update parallel execution > status, > > >> so > > >> >> that the > > >> >> >> > > > > user > > >> >> >> > > > > > or > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > program can understand the current status > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > This is a misunderstanding. We're not introducing > the > > >> >> RESCALE > > >> >> >> > > > > endpoint. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > This endpoint allows you to re-declare the > resources > > >> >> needed to run > > >> >> >> > > > > the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > job. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Once you reach the desired resources (you get more > > >> >> resources than the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > lower > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > bound defines), your job will run. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > We can expose a similar endpoint to "resource > > >> >> requirements" to give > > >> >> >> > > > > you > > >> >> >> > > > > > > an > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > overview of the resources the vertices already > have. > > >> You > > >> >> can already > > >> >> >> > > > > > get > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > this from the REST API, so exposing this in yet > > >> another > > >> >> way should be > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > considered carefully. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > *@Matthias* > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > I'm wondering whether it makes sense to add some > kind > > >> of > > >> >> resource ID > > >> >> >> > > > > to > > >> >> >> > > > > > > the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > REST API. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > That's a good question. I want to think about > that and > > >> >> get back to > > >> >> >> > > > > the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > question later. My main struggle when thinking > about > > >> this > > >> >> is, "if > > >> >> >> > > > > this > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > would be an idempotent POST endpoint," would it > be any > > >> >> different? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > How often do we allow resource requirements to be > > >> changed? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > There shall be no rate limiting on the FLINK > side. If > > >> >> this is > > >> >> >> > > > > something > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > your environment needs, you can achieve it on a > > >> different > > >> >> layer ("we > > >> >> >> > > > > > > can't > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > have FLINK to do everything"). > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Versioning the JobGraph in the JobGraphStore > rather > > >> than > > >> >> overwriting > > >> >> >> > > > > it > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > might be an idea. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > This sounds interesting since it would be closer > to > > >> the > > >> >> JobGraph > > >> >> >> > > > > being > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > immutable. The main problem I see here is that > this > > >> would > > >> >> introduce a > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > BW-incompatible change so it might be a topic for > > >> >> follow-up FLIP. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > I'm just wondering whether we bundle two things > > >> together > > >> >> that are > > >> >> >> > > > > > > actually > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > separate > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Yup, this is how we think about it as well. The > main > > >> >> question is, > > >> >> >> > > > > "who > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > should be responsible for bookkeeping 1) the > JobGraph > > >> and > > >> >> 2) the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > JobResourceRequirements". The JobMaster would be > the > > >> >> right place for > > >> >> >> > > > > > > both, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > but it's currently not the case, and we're tightly > > >> >> coupling the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > dispatcher > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > with the JobMaster. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Initially, we tried to introduce a separate HA > > >> component > > >> >> in JobMaster > > >> >> >> > > > > > for > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > bookkeeping the JobResourceRequirements, but that > > >> proved > > >> >> to be a more > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > significant effort adding additional mess to the > > >> already > > >> >> messy HA > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > ecosystem. Another approach we've discussed was > > >> mutating > > >> >> the JobGraph > > >> >> >> > > > > > and > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > setting JRR into the JobGraph structure itself. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > The middle ground for keeping this effort > reasonably > > >> >> sized and not > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > violating "we want to keep JG immutable" too much > is > > >> >> keeping the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > JobResourceRequirements separate as an internal > config > > >> >> option in > > >> >> >> > > > > > > JobGraph's > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > configuration. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > We ultimately need to rethink the tight coupling > of > > >> >> Dispatcher and > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > JobMaster, but it needs to be a separate effort. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > ...also considering the amount of data that can be > > >> stored > > >> >> in a > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > ConfigMap/ZooKeeper node if versioning the > resource > > >> >> requirement > > >> >> >> > > > > > change > > >> >> >> > > > > > > as > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > proposed in my previous item is an option for > us. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > AFAIK we're only storing pointers to the S3 > objects > > >> in HA > > >> >> metadata, > > >> >> >> > > > > so > > >> >> >> > > > > > we > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > should be okay with having larger structures for > now. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Updating the JobGraphStore means adding more > requests > > >> to > > >> >> the HA > > >> >> >> > > > > backend > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > API. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > It's fine unless you intend to override the > resource > > >> >> requirements a > > >> >> >> > > > > few > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > times per second. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > *@Shammon* > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > How about adding some more information such as > vertex > > >> type > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Since it was intended as a "debug" endpoint, it > makes > > >> >> complete sense! > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > For sql jobs, we always use a unified > parallelism for > > >> >> most vertices. > > >> >> >> > > > > > Can > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > we provide them with a more convenient setting > > >> method > > >> >> instead of > > >> >> >> > > > > each > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > one? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > I completely feel with this. The main thoughts > when > > >> >> designing the API > > >> >> >> > > > > > > were: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - We want to keep it clean and easy to understand. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - Global parallelism can be modeled using > per-vertex > > >> >> parallelism but > > >> >> >> > > > > > not > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > the other way around. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - The API will be used by external tooling > (operator, > > >> >> auto scaler). > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Can you elaborate more about how you'd intend to > use > > >> the > > >> >> endpoint? I > > >> >> >> > > > > > > think > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > we can ultimately introduce a way of re-declaring > > >> >> "per-vertex > > >> >> >> > > > > > defaults," > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > but I'd like to understand the use case bit more > > >> first. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > *@Weijie* > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > What is the default value here (based on what > > >> >> configuration), or just > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > infinite? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Currently, for the lower bound, it's always one, > and > > >> for > > >> >> the upper > > >> >> >> > > > > > bound, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > it's either parallelism (if defined) or the > > >> >> maxParallelism of the > > >> >> >> > > > > > vertex > > >> >> >> > > > > > > in > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > JobGraph. This question might be another signal > for > > >> >> making the > > >> >> >> > > > > defaults > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > explicit (see the answer to Shammon's question > above). > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Thanks, everyone, for your initial thoughts! > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Best, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > D. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 4:39 AM weijie guo < > > >> >> guoweijieres...@gmail.com > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Thanks David for driving this. This is a very > > >> valuable > > >> >> work, > > >> >> >> > > > > > especially > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > for > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > cloud native environment. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> How about adding some more information such > as > > >> >> vertex type > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > (SOURCE/MAP/JOIN and .etc) in the response of > `get > > >> jobs > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > resource-requirements`? For users, only > vertex-id > > >> may > > >> >> be difficult > > >> >> >> > > > > to > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > understand. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > +1 for this suggestion, including jobvertex's > name > > >> in > > >> >> the response > > >> >> >> > > > > > body > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > is > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > more > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > user-friendly. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > I saw this sentence in FLIP: "Setting the upper > > >> bound > > >> >> to -1 will > > >> >> >> > > > > > reset > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > value to the default setting." What is the > default > > >> >> value here > > >> >> >> > > > > (based > > >> >> >> > > > > > > on > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > what configuration), or just infinite? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Weijie > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Shammon FY <zjur...@gmail.com> 于2023年2月6日周一 > > >> 18:06写道： > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Hi David > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for initiating this discussion. I think > > >> >> declaring job > > >> >> >> > > > > > resource > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > requirements by REST API is very valuable. I > just > > >> >> left some > > >> >> >> > > > > > comments > > >> >> >> > > > > > > as > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > followed > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > 1) How about adding some more information > such as > > >> >> vertex type > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > (SOURCE/MAP/JOIN and .etc) in the response of > `get > > >> >> jobs > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > resource-requirements`? For users, only > vertex-id > > >> may > > >> >> be > > >> >> >> > > > > difficult > > >> >> >> > > > > > to > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > understand. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > 2) For sql jobs, we always use a unified > > >> parallelism > > >> >> for most > > >> >> >> > > > > > > vertices. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Can > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > we provide them with a more convenient setting > > >> method > > >> >> instead of > > >> >> >> > > > > > each > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > one? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Best, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Shammon > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 8:18 PM Matthias Pohl < > > >> >> >> > > > > > matthias.p...@aiven.io > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > .invalid> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks David for creating this FLIP. It > sounds > > >> >> promising and > > >> >> >> > > > > > useful > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > to > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > have. Here are some thoughts from my side > (some > > >> of > > >> >> them might > > >> >> >> > > > > be > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > rather a > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > follow-up and not necessarily part of this > > >> FLIP): > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - I'm wondering whether it makes sense to > add > > >> some > > >> >> kind of > > >> >> >> > > > > > resource > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > ID > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > to > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the REST API. This would give Flink a tool > to > > >> >> verify the PATCH > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > request > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > of > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the external system in a compare-and-set > kind of > > >> >> manner. AFAIU, > > >> >> >> > > > > > the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > process > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > requires the external system to retrieve the > > >> >> resource > > >> >> >> > > > > > requirements > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > first > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (to retrieve the vertex IDs). A resource ID > > >> <ABC> > > >> >> would be sent > > >> >> >> > > > > > > along > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > as > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > a > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unique identifier for the provided setup. > It's > > >> >> essentially the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > version > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > ID > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of the currently deployed resource > requirement > > >> >> configuration. > > >> >> >> > > > > > Flink > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > doesn't > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > know whether the external system would use > the > > >> >> provided > > >> >> >> > > > > > information > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > in > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > some > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > way to derive a new set of resource > requirements > > >> >> for this job. > > >> >> >> > > > > > The > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > subsequent PATCH request with updated > resource > > >> >> requirements > > >> >> >> > > > > would > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > include > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the previously retrieved resource ID <ABC>. > The > > >> >> PATCH call > > >> >> >> > > > > would > > >> >> >> > > > > > > fail > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > if > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > there was a concurrent PATCH call in between > > >> >> indicating to the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > external > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > system that the resource requirements were > > >> >> concurrently > > >> >> >> > > > > updated. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - How often do we allow resource > requirements > > >> to be > > >> >> changed? > > >> >> >> > > > > That > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > question > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > might make my previous comment on the > resource > > >> ID > > >> >> obsolete > > >> >> >> > > > > > because > > >> >> >> > > > > > > we > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > could > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > just make any PATCH call fail if there was a > > >> >> resource > > >> >> >> > > > > requirement > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > update > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > within a certain time frame before the > request. > > >> But > > >> >> such a time > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > period > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > is > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > something we might want to make configurable > > >> then, > > >> >> I guess. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Versioning the JobGraph in the > JobGraphStore > > >> >> rather than > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > overwriting > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > it > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > might be an idea. This would enable us to > > >> provide > > >> >> resource > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > requirement > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > changes in the UI or through the REST API. > It is > > >> >> related to a > > >> >> >> > > > > > > problem > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > around keeping track of the exception > history > > >> >> within the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > AdaptiveScheduler > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and also having to consider multiple > versions > > >> of a > > >> >> JobGraph. > > >> >> >> > > > > But > > >> >> >> > > > > > > for > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > that > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > one, we use the ExecutionGraphInfoStore > right > > >> now. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Updating the JobGraph in the JobGraphStore > > >> makes > > >> >> sense. I'm > > >> >> >> > > > > > just > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wondering whether we bundle two things > together > > >> >> that are > > >> >> >> > > > > actually > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > separate: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > The business logic and the execution > > >> configuration > > >> >> (the > > >> >> >> > > > > resource > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > requirements). I'm aware that this is not a > > >> flaw of > > >> >> the current > > >> >> >> > > > > > > FLIP > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > but > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather something that was not necessary to > > >> address > > >> >> in the past > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > because > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > JobGraph was kind of static. I don't > remember > > >> >> whether that was > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > already > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > discussed while working on the > AdaptiveScheduler > > >> >> for FLIP-160 > > >> >> >> > > > > > [1]. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Maybe, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > I'm missing some functionality here that > > >> requires > > >> >> us to have > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > everything > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > in > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > one place. But it feels like updating the > entire > > >> >> JobGraph which > > >> >> >> > > > > > > could > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > be > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > actually a "config change" is not > reasonable. > > >> >> ...also > > >> >> >> > > > > considering > > >> >> >> > > > > > > the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > amount of data that can be stored in a > > >> >> ConfigMap/ZooKeeper node > > >> >> >> > > > > > if > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > versioning the resource requirement change > as > > >> >> proposed in my > > >> >> >> > > > > > > previous > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > item > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is an option for us. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Updating the JobGraphStore means adding > more > > >> >> requests to the > > >> >> >> > > > > HA > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > backend > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > API. There were some concerns shared in the > > >> >> discussion thread > > >> >> >> > > > > [2] > > >> >> >> > > > > > > for > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > FLIP-270 [3] on pressuring the k8s API > server in > > >> >> the past with > > >> >> >> > > > > > too > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > many > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > calls. Eventhough, it's more likely to be > > >> caused by > > >> >> >> > > > > > checkpointing, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > I > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > still > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wanted to bring it up. We're working on a > > >> >> standardized > > >> >> >> > > > > > performance > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > test > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > to > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > prepare going forward with FLIP-270 [3] > right > > >> now. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Matthias > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-160%3A+Adaptive+Scheduler > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [2] > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/bm6rmxxk6fbrqfsgz71gvso58950d4mj > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [3] > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-270%3A+Repeatable+Cleanup+of+Checkpoints > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:31 AM ConradJam < > > >> >> jam.gz...@gmail.com > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi David: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for drive this flip, which helps > > >> less > > >> >> flink > > >> >> >> > > > > shutdown > > >> >> >> > > > > > > time > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for this flip, I would like to make a few > > >> idea on > > >> >> share > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - when the number of "slots" is > > >> insufficient, > > >> >> can we can > > >> >> >> > > > > > stop > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > users > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rescaling or throw something to tell > user > > >> >> "less avaliable > > >> >> >> > > > > > > slots > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > to > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > upgrade, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > please checkout your alivalbe slots" ? > Or > > >> we > > >> >> could have a > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > request > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > switch(true/false) to allow this > behavior > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - when user upgrade > job-vertx-parallelism > > >> . I > > >> >> want to have > > >> >> >> > > > > > an > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > interface > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to query the current update parallel > > >> execution > > >> >> status, so > > >> >> >> > > > > > that > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > program can understand the current > status > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - I want to have an interface to query > the > > >> >> current update > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > parallelism > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > execution status. This also helps > similar > > >> to > > >> >> *[1] Flink > > >> >> >> > > > > K8S > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Operator* > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > management > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > { > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > status: Failed > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > reason: "less avaliable slots to > upgrade, > > >> >> please checkout > > >> >> >> > > > > > your > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > alivalbe > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > slots" > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > } > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - *Pending*: this job now is join the > > >> upgrade > > >> >> queue,it > > >> >> >> > > > > will > > >> >> >> > > > > > be > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > update > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > later > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - *Rescaling*: job now is > rescaling,wait it > > >> >> finish > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - *Finished*: finish do it > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - *Failed* : something have wrong,so > this > > >> job > > >> >> is not > > >> >> >> > > > > > alivable > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > upgrade > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I want to supplement my above content in > flip, > > >> >> what do you > > >> >> >> > > > > > think > > >> >> >> > > > > > > ? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-kubernetes-operator-docs-main/ > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > David Morávek <d...@apache.org> > 于2023年2月3日周五 > > >> >> 16:42写道： > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > This FLIP [1] introduces a new REST API > for > > >> >> declaring > > >> >> >> > > > > > resource > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > requirements > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > for the Adaptive Scheduler. There seems > to > > >> be a > > >> >> clear need > > >> >> >> > > > > > for > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > this > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > API > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > based on the discussion on the > "Reworking > > >> the > > >> >> Rescale API" > > >> >> >> > > > > > [2] > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > thread. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Before we get started, this work is > heavily > > >> >> based on the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > prototype > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > [3] > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > created by Till Rohrmann, and the FLIP > is > > >> being > > >> >> published > > >> >> >> > > > > > with > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > his > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > consent. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Big shoutout to him! > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Last and not least, thanks to Chesnay > and > > >> Roman > > >> >> for the > > >> >> >> > > > > > initial > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > reviews > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussions. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > The best start would be watching a short > > >> demo > > >> >> [4] that I've > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > recorded, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > which > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > illustrates newly added capabilities > > >> (rescaling > > >> >> the running > > >> >> >> > > > > > > job, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > handing > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > back resources to the RM, and session > > >> cluster > > >> >> support). > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > The intuition behind the FLIP is being > able > > >> to > > >> >> define > > >> >> >> > > > > > resource > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > requirements > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ("resource boundaries") externally that > the > > >> >> >> > > > > AdaptiveScheduler > > >> >> >> > > > > > > can > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > navigate > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > within. This is a building block for > > >> >> higher-level efforts > > >> >> >> > > > > > such > > >> >> >> > > > > > > as > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > an > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > external Autoscaler. The natural > extension > > >> of > > >> >> this work > > >> >> >> > > > > would > > >> >> >> > > > > > > be > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > to > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > allow > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to specify per-vertex ResourceProfiles. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your thoughts; any > > >> feedback > > >> >> is > > >> >> >> > > > > > appreciated! > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-291%3A+Externalized+Declarative+Resource+Management > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/2f7dgr88xtbmsohtr0f6wmsvw8sw04f5 > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [3] > > >> >> https://github.com/tillrohrmann/flink/tree/autoscaling > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [4] > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vp8W-7Zk_iKXPTAiBT-eLPmCMd_I57Ty/view > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > D. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Best > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ConradJam > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >
