[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4478?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15509531#comment-15509531
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-4478:
---------------------------------------
Github user tillrohrmann commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/2435
I've rebased the PR onto the latest flip-6 branch.
> Implement heartbeat logic
> -------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-4478
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4478
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Distributed Coordination
> Affects Versions: 1.1.0
> Reporter: Till Rohrmann
> Assignee: Till Rohrmann
> Fix For: 1.2.0
>
>
> With the Flip-6 refactoring, we'll have the need for a dedicated heartbeat
> component. The heartbeat component is used to check the liveliness of the
> distributed components among each other. Furthermore, heartbeats are used to
> regularly transmit status updates to another component. For example, the
> TaskManager informs the ResourceManager with each heartbeat about the current
> slot allocation.
> The heartbeat is initiated from one component. This component sends a
> heartbeat request to another component which answers with an heartbeat
> response. Thus, one can differentiate between a sending and a receiving side.
> Apart from the triggering of the heartbeat request, the logic of treating
> heartbeats, marking components dead and payload delivery are the same and
> should be reusable by different distributed components (JM, TM, RM).
> Different models for the heartbeat reporting are conceivable. First of all,
> the heartbeat request could be sent as an ask operation where the heartbeat
> response is returned as a future on the sending side. Alternatively, the
> sending side could request a heartbeat response by sending a tell message.
> The heartbeat response is then delivered by an RPC back to the heartbeat
> sender. The latter model has the advantage that a heartbeat response is not
> tightly coupled to a heartbeat request. Such a tight coupling could cause
> that heartbeat response are ignored after the future has timed out even
> though they might still contain valuable information (receiver is still
> alive).
> Furthermore, different strategies for the heartbeat triggering and marking
> heartbeat targets as dead are conceivable. For example, we could periodically
> (with a fixed period) trigger a heartbeat request and mark all targets as
> dead if we didn't receive a heartbeat response in a given time period.
> Furthermore, we could adapt the heartbeat interval and heartbeat timeouts
> with respect to the latency of previous heartbeat responses. This would
> reflect the current load and network conditions better.
> For the first version, I would propose to use a fixed period heartbeat with a
> maximum heartbeat timeout before a target is marked dead. Furthermore, I
> would propose to use tell messages (fire and forget) to request and report
> heartbeats because they are the more flexible model imho.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
