[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-23208?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17385328#comment-17385328
]
Piotr Nowojski edited comment on FLINK-23208 at 7/22/21, 7:49 AM:
------------------------------------------------------------------
This is basically the same bug as
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9857 but this time in test code?
{quote}
This change will break many unit tests, should I create another JIRA for this ?
{quote}
Not necessarily. I mean if you think it's better to have a separate ticket for
that, I'm fine with that. Otherwise for me it can just be separate commit in
the same PR for this JIRA issue. As you think is best.
was (Author: pnowojski):
This is basically the same bug as
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9857 but this time in test code?
{quote}
This change will break many unit tests, should I create another JIRA for this ?
{quote}
Not necessarily. I mean if you think it's better to have a separate ticket for
that, I'm fine with that. Otherwise for me it can just be separate commit in
the same PR for this JIRA issue.
> Late processing timers need to wait 1ms at least to be fired
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-23208
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-23208
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: API / DataStream, Runtime / Task
> Affects Versions: 1.11.0, 1.11.3, 1.13.0, 1.14.0, 1.12.4
> Reporter: Jiayi Liao
> Assignee: Jiayi Liao
> Priority: Critical
> Labels: critical, pull-request-available
> Attachments: screenshot-1.png
>
>
> The problem is from the codes below:
> {code:java}
> public static long getProcessingTimeDelay(long processingTimestamp, long
> currentTimestamp) {
> // delay the firing of the timer by 1 ms to align the semantics with
> watermark. A watermark
> // T says we won't see elements in the future with a timestamp smaller
> or equal to T.
> // With processing time, we therefore need to delay firing the timer by
> one ms.
> return Math.max(processingTimestamp - currentTimestamp, 0) + 1;
> }
> {code}
> Assuming a Flink job creates 1 timer per millionseconds, and is able to
> consume 1 timer/ms. Here is what will happen:
> * Timestmap1(1st ms): timer1 is registered and will be triggered on
> Timestamp2.
> * Timestamp2(2nd ms): timer2 is registered and timer1 is triggered
> * Timestamp3(3rd ms): timer3 is registered and timer1 is consumed, after
> this, {{InternalTimerServiceImpl}} registers next timer, which is timer2, and
> timer2 will be triggered on Timestamp4(wait 1ms at least)
> * Timestamp4(4th ms): timer4 is registered and timer2 is triggered
> * Timestamp5(5th ms): timer5 is registered and timer2 is consumed, after
> this, {{InternalTimerServiceImpl}} registers next timer, which is timer3, and
> timer3 will be triggered on Timestamp6(wait 1ms at least)
> As we can see here, the ability of the Flink job is consuming 1 timer/ms, but
> it's actually able to consume 0.5 timer/ms. And another problem is that we
> cannot observe the delay from the lag metrics of the source(Kafka). Instead,
> what we can tell is that the moment of output is much later than expected.
> I've added a metrics in our inner version, we can see the lag of the timer
> triggering keeps increasing:
> !screenshot-1.png!
> *In another word, we should never let the late processing timer wait 1ms, I
> think a simple change would be as below:*
> {code:java}
> return Math.max(processingTimestamp - currentTimestamp, -1) + 1;
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
