[DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Hi all! The shuffle service is responsible for transporting upstream produced data to the downstream side. In flink, the NettyServer is used for network transport service and this component is started in the TaskManager process. That means the TaskManager can support internal shuffle service which exists some concerns: 1. If a task finishes, the ResultPartition of this task still retains registered in TaskManager, because the output buffers have to be transported by internal shuffle service in TaskManager. That means the TaskManager can not be released by ResourceManager until ResultPartition released. It may waste container resources and can not support well for dynamic resource scenarios. 2. If we want to expand another shuffle service implementation, the current mechanism is not easy to handle, because the output level (result partition) and transport level (shuffle service) are not divided clearly and loss of abstraction to be extended. For above considerations, we propose the external shuffle service which can be deployed on any other external contaienrs, e.g. NodeManager container in yarn. Then the TaskManager can be released ASAP ifneeded when all the internal tasks finished. The persistent output files of these finished tasks can be served to transport by external shuffle service in the same machine. Further we can abstract both of the output level and transport level to support different implementations. e.g. We realized merging the data of all the subpartitions into limited persistent local files for disk improvements in some scenarios instead of one-subpartiton-one-file. I know it may be a big work for doing this, and I just point out some ideas, and wish getting any feedbacks from you! Best, Zhijiang
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Thanks for starting this design discussion Zhijiang! I really like the idea to introduce a ShuffleService abstraction which allows to have different implementations depending on the actual use case. Especially for batch jobs I can clearly see the benefits of persisting the results somewhere else. Do you already know which interfaces we need to extend and where to introduce new abstractions? Cheers, Till On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:57 PM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) wrote: > Hi all! > > The shuffle service is responsible for transporting upstream produced data > to the downstream side. In flink, the NettyServer is used for network > transport service and this component is started in the TaskManager process. > That means the TaskManager can support internal shuffle service which > exists some concerns: > 1. If a task finishes, the ResultPartition of this task still retains > registered in TaskManager, because the output buffers have to be > transported by internal shuffle service in TaskManager. That means the > TaskManager can not be released by ResourceManager until ResultPartition > released. It may waste container resources and can not support well for > dynamic resource scenarios. > 2. If we want to expand another shuffle service implementation, the > current mechanism is not easy to handle, because the output level (result > partition) and transport level (shuffle service) are not divided clearly > and loss of abstraction to be extended. > > For above considerations, we propose the external shuffle service which > can be deployed on any other external contaienrs, e.g. NodeManager > container in yarn. Then the TaskManager can be released ASAP ifneeded when > all the internal tasks finished. The persistent output files of these > finished tasks can be served to transport by external shuffle service in > the same machine. > > Further we can abstract both of the output level and transport level to > support different implementations. e.g. We realized merging the data of all > the subpartitions into limited persistent local files for disk improvements > in some scenarios instead of one-subpartiton-one-file. > > I know it may be a big work for doing this, and I just point out some > ideas, and wish getting any feedbacks from you! > > Best, > Zhijiang
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
The rough plan sounds good Zhijiang. I think we should continue with what you've proposed: Open a JIRA issue and creating a design document which outlines the required changes a little bit more in detail. Once this is done, we should link the design document in the JIRA issue and post it here for further discussion. Cheers, Till On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:04 PM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) < wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> wrote: > Glad to receive your positive feedbacks Till! > > Actually our motivation is to support batch job well as you mentioned. > > For output level, flink already has the Subpartition abstraction(writer), > and currently there are PipelinedSubpartition(memory output) and > SpillableSubpartition(one-sp-one-file output) implementations. We can > extend this abstraction to realize other persistent outputs (e.g. > sort-merge-file). > > For transport level(shuffle service), the current SubpartitionView > abstraction(reader) seems as the brige linked with the output level, then > the view can understand and read the different output formats. The current > NetworkEnvironment seems take the role of internal shuffle service in > TaskManager and the transport server is realized by netty inside. This > component can also be started in other external containers like NodeManager > of yarn to take the role of external shuffle service. Further we can > abstract to extend the shuffle service for transporting outputs by http or > rdma instead of current netty. This abstraction should provide the way for > output registration in order to read the results correctly, similar with > current SubpartitionView. > > The above is still a rough idea. Next I plan to create a feature jira to > cover the related changes if possible. It would be better if getting help > from related committers to review the detail designs together. > > Best, > Zhijiang > > -- > 发件人：Till Rohrmann > 发送时间：2018年8月29日(星期三) 17:36 > 收件人：dev ; Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) < > wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> > 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Thanks for starting this design discussion Zhijiang! > > I really like the idea to introduce a ShuffleService abstraction which > allows to have different implementations depending on the actual use case. > Especially for batch jobs I can clearly see the benefits of persisting the > results somewhere else. > > Do you already know which interfaces we need to extend and where to > introduce new abstractions? > > Cheers, > Till > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:57 PM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) > wrote: > Hi all! > > The shuffle service is responsible for transporting upstream produced data > to the downstream side. In flink, the NettyServer is used for network > transport service and this component is started in the TaskManager process. > That means the TaskManager can support internal shuffle service which > exists some concerns: > 1. If a task finishes, the ResultPartition of this task still retains > registered in TaskManager, because the output buffers have to be > transported by internal shuffle service in TaskManager. That means the > TaskManager can not be released by ResourceManager until ResultPartition > released. It may waste container resources and can not support well for > dynamic resource scenarios. > 2. If we want to expand another shuffle service implementation, the > current mechanism is not easy to handle, because the output level (result > partition) and transport level (shuffle service) are not divided clearly > and loss of abstraction to be extended. > > For above considerations, we propose the external shuffle service which > can be deployed on any other external contaienrs, e.g. NodeManager > container in yarn. Then the TaskManager can be released ASAP ifneeded when > all the internal tasks finished. The persistent output files of these > finished tasks can be served to transport by external shuffle service in > the same machine. > > Further we can abstract both of the output level and transport level to > support different implementations. e.g. We realized merging the data of all > the subpartitions into limited persistent local files for disk improvements > in some scenarios instead of one-subpartiton-one-file. > > I know it may be a big work for doing this, and I just point out some > ideas, and wish getting any feedbacks from you! > > Best, > Zhijiang > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Thanks for the update Zhijiang! The community is currently quite busy with the next Flink release. I hope that we can finish the release in two weeks. After that people will become more responsive again. Cheers, Till On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 7:49 AM zhijiang wrote: > I already created the umbrella jira [1] for this improvement, and attched > the design doc [2] in this jira. > > Welcome for further discussion about the details. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10653 > [2] > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jb0Mf46ace-6cLRQxJzo6VNQQVxn3hwf9Zqmv5pcb34/edit?usp=sharing > > > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jb0Mf46ace-6cLRQxJzo6VNQQVxn3hwf9Zqmv5pcb34/edit?usp=sharing> > Best, > Zhijiang > > -- > 发件人：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) > 发送时间：2018年9月11日(星期二) 15:21 > 收件人：dev > 抄 送：dev > 主 题：回复：[DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Many thanks Till! > > > I would create a JIRA for this feature and design a document attched with it. > I will let you know after ready! :) > > Best, > Zhijiang > > > -- > 发件人：Till Rohrmann > 发送时间：2018年9月7日(星期五) 22:01 > 收件人：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) > 抄 送：dev > 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > The rough plan sounds good Zhijiang. I think we should continue with what > you've proposed: Open a JIRA issue and creating a design document which > outlines the required changes a little bit more in detail. Once this is > done, we should link the design document in the JIRA issue and post it here > for further discussion. > > Cheers, > Till > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:04 PM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) < > wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> wrote: > > > Glad to receive your positive feedbacks Till! > > > > Actually our motivation is to support batch job well as you mentioned. > > > > For output level, flink already has the Subpartition abstraction(writer), > > and currently there are PipelinedSubpartition(memory output) and > > SpillableSubpartition(one-sp-one-file output) implementations. We can > > extend this abstraction to realize other persistent outputs (e.g. > > sort-merge-file). > > > > For transport level(shuffle service), the current SubpartitionView > > abstraction(reader) seems as the brige linked with the output level, then > > > the view can understand and read the different output formats. The current > > NetworkEnvironment seems take the role of internal shuffle service in > > TaskManager and the transport server is realized by netty inside. This > > > component can also be started in other external containers like NodeManager > > of yarn to take the role of external shuffle service. Further we can > > > abstract to extend the shuffle service for transporting outputs by http or > > > rdma instead of current netty. This abstraction should provide the way for > > output registration in order to read the results correctly, similar with > > current SubpartitionView. > > > > The above is still a rough idea. Next I plan to create a feature jira to > > cover the related changes if possible. It would be better if getting help > > from related committers to review the detail designs together. > > > > Best, > > Zhijiang > > > > -- > > 发件人：Till Rohrmann > > 发送时间：2018年8月29日(星期三) 17:36 > > 收件人：dev ; Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) < > > wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> > > 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > > > Thanks for starting this design discussion Zhijiang! > > > > I really like the idea to introduce a ShuffleService abstraction which > > > allows to have different implementations depending on the actual use case. > > > Especially for batch jobs I can clearly see the benefits of persisting the > > results somewhere else. > > > > Do you already know which interfaces we need to extend and where to > > introduce new abstractions? > > > > Cheers, > > Till > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:57 PM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) > > wrote: > > Hi all! > > > > > The shuffle service is responsible for transporting upstream produced data > > to the downstream side. In flink, the NettyServer is used for network > > > transport service and this component is started in the TaskManager process. > > That means the TaskManager can support internal shuffle service which > > exists some concerns: > &g
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Thanks Zhijiang for the proposal. I like the idea of external shuffle service, have left some comments on the document. > On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:26 AM, Till Rohrmann wrote: > > Thanks for the update Zhijiang! The community is currently quite busy with > the next Flink release. I hope that we can finish the release in two weeks. > After that people will become more responsive again. > > Cheers, > Till > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 7:49 AM zhijiang wrote: > >> I already created the umbrella jira [1] for this improvement, and attched >> the design doc [2] in this jira. >> >> Welcome for further discussion about the details. >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10653 >> [2] >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jb0Mf46ace-6cLRQxJzo6VNQQVxn3hwf9Zqmv5pcb34/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jb0Mf46ace-6cLRQxJzo6VNQQVxn3hwf9Zqmv5pcb34/edit?usp=sharing> >> Best, >> Zhijiang >> >> ---------- >> 发件人：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) >> 发送时间：2018年9月11日(星期二) 15:21 >> 收件人：dev >> 抄 送：dev >> 主 题：回复：[DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service >> >> Many thanks Till! >> >> >> I would create a JIRA for this feature and design a document attched with it. >> I will let you know after ready! :) >> >> Best, >> Zhijiang >> >> >> -- >> 发件人：Till Rohrmann >> 发送时间：2018年9月7日(星期五) 22:01 >> 收件人：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) >> 抄 送：dev >> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service >> >> The rough plan sounds good Zhijiang. I think we should continue with what >> you've proposed: Open a JIRA issue and creating a design document which >> outlines the required changes a little bit more in detail. Once this is >> done, we should link the design document in the JIRA issue and post it here >> for further discussion. >> >> Cheers, >> Till >> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:04 PM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) < >> wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> wrote: >> >>> Glad to receive your positive feedbacks Till! >>> >>> Actually our motivation is to support batch job well as you mentioned. >>> >>> For output level, flink already has the Subpartition abstraction(writer), >>> and currently there are PipelinedSubpartition(memory output) and >>> SpillableSubpartition(one-sp-one-file output) implementations. We can >>> extend this abstraction to realize other persistent outputs (e.g. >>> sort-merge-file). >>> >>> For transport level(shuffle service), the current SubpartitionView >>> abstraction(reader) seems as the brige linked with the output level, then >> >>> the view can understand and read the different output formats. The current >>> NetworkEnvironment seems take the role of internal shuffle service in >>> TaskManager and the transport server is realized by netty inside. This >> >>> component can also be started in other external containers like NodeManager >>> of yarn to take the role of external shuffle service. Further we can >> >>> abstract to extend the shuffle service for transporting outputs by http or >> >>> rdma instead of current netty. This abstraction should provide the way for >>> output registration in order to read the results correctly, similar with >>> current SubpartitionView. >>> >>> The above is still a rough idea. Next I plan to create a feature jira to >>> cover the related changes if possible. It would be better if getting help >>> from related committers to review the detail designs together. >>> >>> Best, >>> Zhijiang >>> >>> -- >>> 发件人：Till Rohrmann >>> 发送时间：2018年8月29日(星期三) 17:36 >>> 收件人：dev ; Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) < >>> wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> >>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service >>> >>> Thanks for starting this design discussion Zhijiang! >>> >>> I really like the idea to introduce a ShuffleService abstraction which >> >>> allows to have different implementations depending on the actual use case. >> >>> Especially for batch jobs I can clearly see the benefits of persisting the >>> results somewhere else. >>> >>> Do you already know which interfaces we need to
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
HM1VaVENow-PweUtXSRr68nGg/edit?usp=sharing > -- > 发件人：zhijiang > 发送时间：2018年11月1日(星期四) 17:19 > 收件人：dev ; Jin Sun > 抄 送：Nico Kruber ; Piotr Nowojski > ; Stephan Ewen > 主 题：回复：[DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Thanks for the efficient response till! > > Thanks sunjin for the good feedbacks, we will further confirm with the > comments then! :) > -- > 发件人：Jin Sun > 发送时间：2018年11月1日(星期四) 06:42 > 收件人：dev > 抄 送：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) ; Nico Kruber > ; Piotr Nowojski ; Stephan > Ewen > 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Thanks Zhijiang for the proposal. I like the idea of external shuffle > service, have left some comments on the document. > >> On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:26 AM, Till Rohrmann wrote: >> >> Thanks for the update Zhijiang! The community is currently quite busy with >> the next Flink release. I hope that we can finish the release in two weeks. >> After that people will become more responsive again. >> >> Cheers, >> Till >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 7:49 AM zhijiang wrote: >> >>> I already created the umbrella jira [1] for this improvement, and attched >>> the design doc [2] in this jira. >>> >>> Welcome for further discussion about the details. >>> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10653 >>> [2] >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jb0Mf46ace-6cLRQxJzo6VNQQVxn3hwf9Zqmv5pcb34/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jb0Mf46ace-6cLRQxJzo6VNQQVxn3hwf9Zqmv5pcb34/edit?usp=sharing> >>> Best, >>> Zhijiang >>> >>> -- >>> 发件人：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) >>> 发送时间：2018年9月11日(星期二) 15:21 >>> 收件人：dev >>> 抄 送：dev >>> 主 题：回复：[DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service >>> >>> Many thanks Till! >>> >>> >>> I would create a JIRA for this feature and design a document attched with >>> it. >>> I will let you know after ready! :) >>> >>> Best, >>> Zhijiang >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 发件人：Till Rohrmann >>> 发送时间：2018年9月7日(星期五) 22:01 >>> 收件人：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) >>> 抄 送：dev >>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service >>> >>> The rough plan sounds good Zhijiang. I think we should continue with what >>> you've proposed: Open a JIRA issue and creating a design document which >>> outlines the required changes a little bit more in detail. Once this is >>> done, we should link the design document in the JIRA issue and post it here >>> for further discussion. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Till >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:04 PM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) < >>> wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Glad to receive your positive feedbacks Till! >>>> >>>> Actually our motivation is to support batch job well as you mentioned. >>>> >>>> For output level, flink already has the Subpartition abstraction(writer), >>>> and currently there are PipelinedSubpartition(memory output) and >>>> SpillableSubpartition(one-sp-one-file output) implementations. We can >>>> extend this abstraction to realize other persistent outputs (e.g. >>>> sort-merge-file). >>>> >>>> For transport level(shuffle service), the current SubpartitionView >>>> abstraction(reader) seems as the brige linked with the output level, then >>> >>>> the view can understand and read the different output formats. The current >>>> NetworkEnvironment seems take the role of internal shuffle service in >>>> TaskManager and the transport server is realized by netty inside. This >>> >>>> component can also be started in other external containers like NodeManager >>>> of yarn to take the role of external shuffle service. Further we can >>> >>>> abstract to extend the shuffle service for transporting outputs by http or >>> >>>> rdma instead of current netty. This abstraction should provide the way for >>>> output registration in order to read the results correctly, similar with >>>> current SubpartitionView. >>>> >>>> The above is still a rough
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
s the easiest way > first and adjut the level if needed in future. > > 2. ShuffleManager interface > > I think you mentioned three sub issues in this part: > > 2.1 Introduction of additional ResultPartitionWriterFactory && > InputGateReaderFactory > > I am not against the introduction of these two factories. The original > introduction of pluggable ShuffleManager interface is for creating different > writer and reader sides. If the ShuffleManager interface is used for creating > factories, and then the factories are used for creating writer and reader. I > still think the essence is same, and only the form is different. That is the > ShuffleManager concept is seen on JobManager side, and the task only sees the > corresponding factories from ShuffleManager. In other words, we add another > factory layer to distinguish between JobManager and task. The form might seem > a bit better to introduce corresponding factories, so I am willing to take > this way for implementation. > > 2.2 Whether to retain getResultPartitionLocation method in ShuffleManager > interface > > If I understand correctly, you mean to put this location as an argument in > InputGateReaderFacotry constructor? If to do so, I think it makes sense and > we can avoid have this explicit method in interface. But we also need to > adjust the existing related process like updatePartitionInfo for downstream > side. In this case, the partition location is unknown during deploying > downstream tasks. Based on upstream's consumable notification, the location > update is triggered by JobManager to downstream side. > > 2.3 ShuffleService interface > > My initial thought is not making it as an interface. Because for internal or > external shuffle cases, they can reuse the same unified netty-based shuffle > service if we wrap the related componenets into current shuffle service well. > If we want to furtherextend other implementations of shuffle service, like > http-based shuffle service, then we can define an interface for it, the way > as current RpcService interface to get ride of only akka implementations. So > it also makes sense on my side to keep this interface. As for > ShuffleServiceRegistry class, I agree with you to have this TaskManager level > service for managing and sharing for all the internal tasks. > > In summary, I think we do not have essential conflicts for above issues, > almost for the implementation aspects. And I agree with the above points, > especially for above 2.2 you might need double check if I understand > correctly. > Wish your further feedbacks then I can adjust the docs based on it. Also > welcome any other person's feedbacks! > > > Best, > Zhijiang > > > -- > 发件人：Andrey Zagrebin > 发送时间：2018年12月10日(星期一) 05:18 > 收件人：dev ; zhijiang > 抄 送：Nico Kruber ; Piotr Nowojski > ; Stephan Ewen ; Till Rohrmann > > 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Hi Zhijiang, > > Thanks for sharing the document Zhijiang. > I decided to compile my thoughts to consider here, not to overload document > comments any more :) > > I think I still have question about job level configuration for the shuffle > service. You mentioned that we can keep several shuffle manager objects in > one task executor for different jobs. This is valid. My concerns are: > - how do we share shuffle manager resources among different job tasks within > one task executor process? It could be some static objects shared by all > shuffle manager objects of some type but it might be not scalable approach. > Example could be multiplexed netty connections (as I understand, current > netty stack can become just custom shuffle service). > - In case of having it per job, we might need to provide compatibility check > between shuffle service and cluster mode (e.g. yarn ext shuffle service for > standalone mode cluster) if it is an issue. > - Having it per job feels like the same complexity as having it per operator, > at the first glance, just changes its granularity and where objects reside. > - what is the problem to use cluster per job mode? Then shuffle manager per > cluster and per job is the same but might simplify other issues at the > beginning. Streaming and batch jobs with different shuffle requirements could > be started in different clusters per job. > > As for ShuffleManager interface, I think I see your point with the > ResultPartitionLocation. I agree that partition needs some addressing of > underlying connection or resources in general. It can be thinked of as an > argument of ShuffleManager factory methods. > > My po
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Hi Andrey,
Thanks for further research on this topic and providing very helpful summaries.
As we discussed before, I really like the idea of dividing two separate
components on both JM and TM sides.
1. On JM side, the ShuffleMaster componenet created from ShuffleManager can
manage and handle partition related issues properly.
1.1 The introduction of PartitionShuffleDescriptor and
PartitiondDeploymentDescriptor is suitable for covering all the necessary infos
related with partition during deployment process and other future extensions.
The form of this new descriptor is also consistent with existing
ResultPartitionDeploymentDescriptor and InputGateDeploymentDescriptor.
2. On TM side, the ShuffleService component created from ShuffleManager is a TM
level service, which can be used for creating ResultPartitionWriter and
InputGate during task deployment.
2.1 Concerning of updating UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor, I think it may
bring an argument that whether the ShuffleService should provide a separate
method for updating it or not. In other words, because the InputGate is created
by ShuffleService, then whether all the possible operations for InputGate such
as update or release should be handled via ShuffleService? I think it can be
interpreted to operate InputGate directly if the update or release is general
for all the ShuffleService implementations. But the InputGate interface should
provide the explicit methods for releasing itself and updating input channels
to make the whole process work.
2.2 In addition, some implementation details can be further confirmed in
separate JIRAs, such as whether we need task info related parameters during
creating writer, and how to extract necessary components from current
NetworkEnvrironment to wrap in specific ShuffleService implementation, etc.
3. For the points mentioned in future extensions, I agree with your analysis.
We can focus on them separately step by step in different priorities. The above
ShuffleMaster provides a basic precondition for decoupling the life cycles
between partition state and task state. Then we can further extend the methods
in ShuffleMaster to know whether the partition is still available for speeding
up failover, and whether the partition is consumed by downstream to decide when
to release TM or clean partition, etc. It is also a good idea to further
refactor the interfaces on writer and reader sides to fine-grained handle raw
record instead of Buffer. And it would be involved in more changes in current
RecordWriter/StreamInputProcessor.
I think we can further confirm the above 2.1 issue, then I would adjust the
google doc based on our conclusions which cover not only the first step, but
also all the future extensions described and listed in priority.
BTW, do you think it is necessary that we further co-author a FLIP for this
feature? It is actually involved in many changes on both TM, JM sides. :)
Best,
Zhijiang
--
From:Andrey Zagrebin
Send Time:2018年12月20日(星期四) 01:20
To:zhijiang
Cc:dev
Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Hi Zhijiang,
Thanks for detailed answers! I am glad we are on the same page.
I spent some time on thinking more about our concerns and decided to make more
suggestions for the discussion.
At the end, I also gathered some points related to possible extensions of
shuffle API to verify that the final pluggable design can support them later
with less changes.
It might make sense for shuffle implementation to have component running on
both JM and TM sides.
JM has a global view of what is happening and can interact with shuffling
system independently on whether tasks are running or not. The component
services could internally further communicate to each other outside of existing
JM/TM APIs, depending on shuffle implementation.
It could help later with partition global life cycle management and cleanup.
Moreover, if we decide to use some ShuffleDeploymentDescriptor instead of
ResultPartitionLocation or factories to instantiate Readers and Writers, they
can be created in Task Executor.
JM is probably not interested in this concern. ShuffleDeploymentDescriptor can
be specific to shuffle implementation, like factories, and contain specific
shuffle config for task side.
1. Configuration:
interface ShuffleManager {
ShuffleMaster createMaster(Configuration flinkConfig);
ShuffleService createService(Configuration flinkConfig);
}
ShuffleManager is a factory for ShuffleMaster (JM side) and ShuffleService (TM
side).
Flink config could also contain specific shuffle configuration, like port etc.
Class which implements ShuffleManager in Flink cluster config, default is what
we have now (can be the first step)
2. Job master side
class PartitionShuffleDescriptor {
JobID, ExecutionAttemptID, ResultPartitionType, ResultPartitionLocation,
TaskManagerLocation, etc
later
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Hi Zhijiang, Thanks for considering my thoughts and concerns. Those are just suggestions for your design document. My understanding about 2.1 was initially that shuffle service is also treated as unknown in case of *UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor *which is not quite true. Thinking about it more, it might be actually up to shuffle service to decide how to react on the events of producer or consumer deployment. Maybe, *ShuffleMaster *could have two register/deregister methods for input and output (now partition) and/or also task state update method to communicate status of *ShuffleService* running in *TM.* Internally shuffle implementation could decide how to communicate between *ShuffleMaster* and *ShuffleService.* If shuffle is channel-based it can behave in a similar way as now. I agree it probably needs more discussion and refactoring could be planned step by step if it is too involving change. Best, Andrey On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:31 AM zhijiang wrote: > Hi Andrey, > > Thanks for further research on this topic and providing very helpful > summaries. > > As we discussed before, I really like the idea of dividing two separate > components on both *JM* and *TM* sides. > > 1. On *JM* side, the *ShuffleMaster* componenet created from > *ShuffleManager* can manage and handle partition related issues properly. > > 1.1 The introduction of *PartitionShuffleDescriptor* and > *PartitiondDeploymentDescriptor* is suitable for covering all the > necessary infos related with partition during deployment process and other > future extensions. The form of this new descriptor is also consistent with > existing *ResultPartitionDeploymentDescriptor* and > *InputGateDeploymentDescriptor*. > > 2. On *TM* side, the *ShuffleService* component created from > *ShuffleManager* is a *TM* level service, which can be used for creating > *ResultPartitionWriter* and *InputGate* during task deployment. > > 2.1 Concerning of updating *UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor*, I think > it may bring an argument that whether the *ShuffleService* should provide > a separate method for updating it or not. In other words, because the > *InputGate* is created by *ShuffleService*, then whether all the possible > operations for *InputGate* such as update or release should be handled > via *ShuffleService*? I think it can be interpreted to operate *InputGate* > directly if the update or release is general for all the *ShuffleService* > implementations. > But the *InputGate* interface should provide the explicit methods for > releasing itself and updating input channels to make the whole process work. > > 2.2 In addition, some implementation details can be further confirmed in > separate JIRAs, such as whether we need task info related parameters > during creating writer, and how to extract necessary components from > current *NetworkEnvrironment* to wrap in specific *ShuffleService* > implementation, etc. > > 3. For the points mentioned in future extensions, I agree with your > analysis. We can focus on them separately step by step in different > priorities. The above *ShuffleMaster* provides a basic precondition for > decoupling the life cycles between partition state and task state. Then we > can further extend the methods in *ShuffleMaster* to know whether the > partition is still available for speeding up failover, and whether the > partition is consumed by downstream to decide when to release *TM* or > clean partition, etc. It is also a good idea to further refactor the > interfaces on writer and reader sides to fine-grained handle raw record > instead of Buffer. And it would be involved in more changes in current > *RecordWriter*/*StreamInputProcessor*. > > I think we can further confirm the above 2.1 issue, then I would adjust > the google doc based on our conclusions which cover not only the first > step, but also all the future extensions described and listed in priority. > BTW, do you think it is necessary that we further co-author a FLIP for > this feature? It is actually involved in many changes on both *TM*, *JM* > sides. :) > > Best, > Zhijiang > > > > -------------- > From:Andrey Zagrebin > Send Time:2018年12月20日(星期四) 01:20 > To:zhijiang > Cc:dev > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Hi Zhijiang, > > Thanks for detailed answers! I am glad we are on the same page. > > I spent some time on thinking more about our concerns and decided to make > more suggestions for the discussion. > At the end, I also gathered some points related to possible extensions of > shuffle API to verify that the final pluggable design can support them > later with less changes. > > It might make sense for shuffle implementa
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Hi Andrey, Thanks for efficient response for the UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor issue. It is reasonable for considering this special case on both ShuffleMaster and ShuffleService sides. On upstream ShuffleService side, the created ResultPartitionWriter decides whether to notify ShuffleMaster of consumable partition when outputs the first buffer or finishes. On ShuffleMaster side, it might define a method in ShuffleMaster interface for handling this notification message from upstream side, and then internally decide whether to update partition info for downstream sides or not. On downstream ShuffleService side, it might define a method in ShuffleService interface to handle the update partition info message from ShuffleMaster, then it can find the corresponding created InputGate to update. The communication between ShuffleService and ShuffleMaster can make use of TMGateway & JMGateway for current implementation. Certainly it can also rely on other ways for different ShuffleManager implementations. I would update the google doc to make this process clear if you also think so. :) Best, Zhijiang -- From:Andrey Zagrebin Send Time:2018年12月25日(星期二) 02:32 To:zhijiang Cc:dev Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service Hi Zhijiang, Thanks for considering my thoughts and concerns. Those are just suggestions for your design document. My understanding about 2.1 was initially that shuffle service is also treated as unknown in case of UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor which is not quite true. Thinking about it more, it might be actually up to shuffle service to decide how to react on the events of producer or consumer deployment. Maybe, ShuffleMaster could have two register/deregister methods for input and output (now partition) and/or also task state update method to communicate status of ShuffleService running in TM. Internally shuffle implementation could decide how to communicate between ShuffleMaster and ShuffleService. If shuffle is channel-based it can behave in a similar way as now. I agree it probably needs more discussion and refactoring could be planned step by step if it is too involving change. Best, Andrey On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:31 AM zhijiang wrote: Hi Andrey, Thanks for further research on this topic and providing very helpful summaries. As we discussed before, I really like the idea of dividing two separate components on both JM and TM sides. 1. On JM side, the ShuffleMaster componenet created from ShuffleManager can manage and handle partition related issues properly. 1.1 The introduction of PartitionShuffleDescriptor and PartitiondDeploymentDescriptor is suitable for covering all the necessary infos related with partition during deployment process and other future extensions. The form of this new descriptor is also consistent with existing ResultPartitionDeploymentDescriptor and InputGateDeploymentDescriptor. 2. On TM side, the ShuffleService component created from ShuffleManager is a TM level service, which can be used for creating ResultPartitionWriter and InputGate during task deployment. 2.1 Concerning of updating UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor, I think it may bring an argument that whether the ShuffleService should provide a separate method for updating it or not. In other words, because the InputGate is created by ShuffleService, then whether all the possible operations for InputGate such as update or release should be handled via ShuffleService? I think it can be interpreted to operate InputGate directly if the update or release is general for all the ShuffleService implementations. But the InputGate interface should provide the explicit methods for releasing itself and updating input channels to make the whole process work. 2.2 In addition, some implementation details can be further confirmed in separate JIRAs, such as whether we need task info related parameters during creating writer, and how to extract necessary components from current NetworkEnvrironment to wrap in specific ShuffleService implementation, etc. 3. For the points mentioned in future extensions, I agree with your analysis. We can focus on them separately step by step in different priorities. The above ShuffleMaster provides a basic precondition for decoupling the life cycles between partition state and task state. Then we can further extend the methods in ShuffleMaster to know whether the partition is still available for speeding up failover, and whether the partition is consumed by downstream to decide when to release TM or clean partition, etc. It is also a good idea to further refactor the interfaces on writer and reader sides to fine-grained handle raw record instead of Buffer. And it would be involved in more changes in current RecordWriter/StreamInputProcessor. I think we can further confirm the above 2.1 issue, then I would adjust the google doc base
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Hi all, After continuous discussion with Andrey offline, we already reach an agreement for this proposal and co-author the latest google doc under [1]. We plan to create FLIP and sub-tasks by the end of this week, and the first MVP wishes to be covered in FLINK 1.8. Welcome any feedbacks and suggestions! :) [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l7yIVNH3HATP4BnjEOZFkO2CaHf1sVn_DSxS2llmkd8/edit?usp=sharing Best, Zhijiang -- From:zhijiang Send Time:2018年12月25日(星期二) 15:33 To:Andrey Zagrebin Cc:dev Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service Hi Andrey, Thanks for efficient response for the UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor issue. It is reasonable for considering this special case on both ShuffleMaster and ShuffleService sides. On upstream ShuffleService side, the created ResultPartitionWriter decides whether to notify ShuffleMaster of consumable partition when outputs the first buffer or finishes. On ShuffleMaster side, it might define a method in ShuffleMaster interface for handling this notification message from upstream side, and then internally decide whether to update partition info for downstream sides or not. On downstream ShuffleService side, it might define a method in ShuffleService interface to handle the update partition info message from ShuffleMaster, then it can find the corresponding created InputGate to update. The communication between ShuffleService and ShuffleMaster can make use of TMGateway & JMGateway for current implementation. Certainly it can also rely on other ways for different ShuffleManager implementations. I would update the google doc to make this process clear if you also think so. :) Best, Zhijiang -- From:Andrey Zagrebin Send Time:2018年12月25日(星期二) 02:32 To:zhijiang Cc:dev Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service Hi Zhijiang, Thanks for considering my thoughts and concerns. Those are just suggestions for your design document. My understanding about 2.1 was initially that shuffle service is also treated as unknown in case of UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor which is not quite true. Thinking about it more, it might be actually up to shuffle service to decide how to react on the events of producer or consumer deployment. Maybe, ShuffleMaster could have two register/deregister methods for input and output (now partition) and/or also task state update method to communicate status of ShuffleService running in TM. Internally shuffle implementation could decide how to communicate between ShuffleMaster and ShuffleService. If shuffle is channel-based it can behave in a similar way as now. I agree it probably needs more discussion and refactoring could be planned step by step if it is too involving change. Best, Andrey On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:31 AM zhijiang wrote: Hi Andrey, Thanks for further research on this topic and providing very helpful summaries. As we discussed before, I really like the idea of dividing two separate components on both JM and TM sides. 1. On JM side, the ShuffleMaster componenet created from ShuffleManager can manage and handle partition related issues properly. 1.1 The introduction of PartitionShuffleDescriptor and PartitiondDeploymentDescriptor is suitable for covering all the necessary infos related with partition during deployment process and other future extensions. The form of this new descriptor is also consistent with existing ResultPartitionDeploymentDescriptor and InputGateDeploymentDescriptor. 2. On TM side, the ShuffleService component created from ShuffleManager is a TM level service, which can be used for creating ResultPartitionWriter and InputGate during task deployment. 2.1 Concerning of updating UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor, I think it may bring an argument that whether the ShuffleService should provide a separate method for updating it or not. In other words, because the InputGate is created by ShuffleService, then whether all the possible operations for InputGate such as update or release should be handled via ShuffleService? I think it can be interpreted to operate InputGate directly if the update or release is general for all the ShuffleService implementations. But the InputGate interface should provide the explicit methods for releasing itself and updating input channels to make the whole process work. 2.2 In addition, some implementation details can be further confirmed in separate JIRAs, such as whether we need task info related parameters during creating writer, and how to extract necessary components from current NetworkEnvrironment to wrap in specific ShuffleService implementation, etc. 3. For the points mentioned in future extensions, I agree with your analysis. We can focus on them separately step by step in different priorities. The above ShuffleMaster provides a basic precondi
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Hi all, FYI, I created the FLIP-31 under [1] for this proposal and created some subtasks under umbrella jira [2]. Welcome any concerns in previous google doc or speific jiras. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-31%3A+Pluggable+Shuffle+Manager [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10653 Best, Zhijiang -- From:zhijiang Send Time:2019年1月15日(星期二) 17:55 To:Andrey Zagrebin Cc:dev Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service Hi all, After continuous discussion with Andrey offline, we already reach an agreement for this proposal and co-author the latest google doc under [1]. We plan to create FLIP and sub-tasks by the end of this week, and the first MVP wishes to be covered in FLINK 1.8. Welcome any feedbacks and suggestions! :) [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l7yIVNH3HATP4BnjEOZFkO2CaHf1sVn_DSxS2llmkd8/edit?usp=sharing Best, Zhijiang -- From:zhijiang Send Time:2018年12月25日(星期二) 15:33 To:Andrey Zagrebin Cc:dev Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service Hi Andrey, Thanks for efficient response for the UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor issue. It is reasonable for considering this special case on both ShuffleMaster and ShuffleService sides. On upstream ShuffleService side, the created ResultPartitionWriter decides whether to notify ShuffleMaster of consumable partition when outputs the first buffer or finishes. On ShuffleMaster side, it might define a method in ShuffleMaster interface for handling this notification message from upstream side, and then internally decide whether to update partition info for downstream sides or not. On downstream ShuffleService side, it might define a method in ShuffleService interface to handle the update partition info message from ShuffleMaster, then it can find the corresponding created InputGate to update. The communication between ShuffleService and ShuffleMaster can make use of TMGateway & JMGateway for current implementation. Certainly it can also rely on other ways for different ShuffleManager implementations. I would update the google doc to make this process clear if you also think so. :) Best, Zhijiang -- From:Andrey Zagrebin Send Time:2018年12月25日(星期二) 02:32 To:zhijiang Cc:dev Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service Hi Zhijiang, Thanks for considering my thoughts and concerns. Those are just suggestions for your design document. My understanding about 2.1 was initially that shuffle service is also treated as unknown in case of UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor which is not quite true. Thinking about it more, it might be actually up to shuffle service to decide how to react on the events of producer or consumer deployment. Maybe, ShuffleMaster could have two register/deregister methods for input and output (now partition) and/or also task state update method to communicate status of ShuffleService running in TM. Internally shuffle implementation could decide how to communicate between ShuffleMaster and ShuffleService. If shuffle is channel-based it can behave in a similar way as now. I agree it probably needs more discussion and refactoring could be planned step by step if it is too involving change. Best, Andrey On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:31 AM zhijiang wrote: Hi Andrey, Thanks for further research on this topic and providing very helpful summaries. As we discussed before, I really like the idea of dividing two separate components on both JM and TM sides. 1. On JM side, the ShuffleMaster componenet created from ShuffleManager can manage and handle partition related issues properly. 1.1 The introduction of PartitionShuffleDescriptor and PartitiondDeploymentDescriptor is suitable for covering all the necessary infos related with partition during deployment process and other future extensions. The form of this new descriptor is also consistent with existing ResultPartitionDeploymentDescriptor and InputGateDeploymentDescriptor. 2. On TM side, the ShuffleService component created from ShuffleManager is a TM level service, which can be used for creating ResultPartitionWriter and InputGate during task deployment. 2.1 Concerning of updating UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor, I think it may bring an argument that whether the ShuffleService should provide a separate method for updating it or not. In other words, because the InputGate is created by ShuffleService, then whether all the possible operations for InputGate such as update or release should be handled via ShuffleService? I think it can be interpreted to operate InputGate directly if the update or release is general for all the ShuffleService implementations. But the InputGate interface should provide the explicit methods for releasing itself and updating i
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Thanks for creating the FLIP-31 for the external shuffle service Zhijiang. It looks good to me. One thing which is not fully clear to me yet is how the lifecycle management of the partitions integrates with the slot management. At the moment, conceptually we consider the partition data being owned by the TM if I understood it correctly. This means the ShuffleMaster is asked whether a TM can be freed. However, the JobMaster only thinks in terms of slots and not TMs. Thus, the logic would be that the JM asks the ShuffleMaster whether it can return a certain slot. Atm the freeing of slots is done by the `SlotPool` and, thus this would couple the `SlotPool` and the `ShuffleMaster`. Maybe we need to introduce some mechanism to signal when a slot has still some occupied resources. In the shared slot case, one could think of allocating a dummy slot in the shared slot which we only release after the partition data has been consumed. In order to give this design document a little bit more visibility, I would suggest to post it again on the dev mailing list in a separate thread under the title "[DISCUSS] Flip-31: Pluggable Shuffle Manager" or something like this. Cheers, Till On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 7:05 AM zhijiang wrote: > Hi all, > > FYI, I created the FLIP-31 under [1] for this proposal and created some > subtasks under umbrella jira [2]. > Welcome any concerns in previous google doc or speific jiras. > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-31%3A+Pluggable+Shuffle+Manager > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10653 > > Best, > Zhijiang > -- > From:zhijiang > Send Time:2019年1月15日(星期二) 17:55 > To:Andrey Zagrebin > Cc:dev > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Hi all, > > After continuous discussion with Andrey offline, we already reach an > agreement for this proposal and co-author the latest google doc under [1]. > > We plan to create FLIP and sub-tasks by the end of this week, and the > first MVP wishes to be covered in FLINK 1.8. > > Welcome any feedbacks and suggestions! :) > > [1] > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l7yIVNH3HATP4BnjEOZFkO2CaHf1sVn_DSxS2llmkd8/edit?usp=sharing > > Best, > Zhijiang > > > ---------- > From:zhijiang > Send Time:2018年12月25日(星期二) 15:33 > To:Andrey Zagrebin > Cc:dev > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Hi Andrey, > > Thanks for efficient response for the UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor > issue. > > It is reasonable for considering this special case on both ShuffleMaster > and ShuffleService sides. > On upstream ShuffleService side, the created ResultPartitionWriter decides > whether to notify ShuffleMaster of consumable partition when outputs the > first buffer or finishes. > On ShuffleMaster side, it might define a method in ShuffleMaster interface > for handling this notification message from upstream side, and then > internally decide whether to update partition info for downstream sides or > not. > On downstream ShuffleService side, it might define a method in > ShuffleService interface to handle the update partition info message from > ShuffleMaster, then it can find the corresponding created InputGate to > update. > The communication between ShuffleService and ShuffleMaster can make use of > TMGateway & JMGateway for current implementation. Certainly it can also > rely on other ways for different ShuffleManager implementations. I would > update the google doc to make this process clear if you also think so. :) > > Best, > Zhijiang > > > -- > From:Andrey Zagrebin > Send Time:2018年12月25日(星期二) 02:32 > To:zhijiang > Cc:dev > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Hi Zhijiang, > > Thanks for considering my thoughts and concerns. Those are just > suggestions for your design document. > > My understanding about 2.1 was initially that shuffle service is also > treated as unknown in case of UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor which is > not quite true. > Thinking about it more, it might be actually up to shuffle service to > decide how to react on the events of producer or consumer deployment. > Maybe, ShuffleMaster could have two register/deregister methods for input > and output (now partition) and/or also task state update method to > communicate status of ShuffleService running in TM. > Internally shuffle implementation could decide how to communicate between > ShuffleMaster and ShuffleService. If shuffle is channel-based it can behave > in a similar way as now. > I agree
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Hi till, Very glad to receive your feedbacks and it is atually very helpful. The proposed ShuffleMaster in JM would be involved in many existing processes, such as task deployment, task failover, TM release, so it might be interactive with corresponding Scheduler, FailoverStrategy, SlotPool components. In the first version we try to focus on deploying process which is described in detail in the FLIP. Concerning the other improvements based on the proposed architecuture, we just mentioned the basic ideas and have not given the whole detail process. But I think it is reasonable and natural to solve these issues based on that. And we would further give more details for other future steps. I totally agree with your thought of handling TM release. Currently once the task is finished, the corresponding slot is regared as free no matter whether the produced partition is consumed or not. Actually we could think both task and its partitionsoccupy resources in slot. So the slot can be regared as free until the internal partition is consumed and released. Then the TM release logic is also improved meanwhile. I think your suggestions below already gives the detail and specific process for this improvement. I am in favor of launching a separate thread for this discussion again, thanks for the advice! Best, Zhijiang -- From:Till Rohrmann Send Time:2019年1月28日(星期一) 19:14 To:dev ; zhijiang Cc:Andrey Zagrebin Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service Thanks for creating the FLIP-31 for the external shuffle service Zhijiang. It looks good to me. One thing which is not fully clear to me yet is how the lifecycle management of the partitions integrates with the slot management. At the moment, conceptually we consider the partition data being owned by the TM if I understood it correctly. This means the ShuffleMaster is asked whether a TM can be freed. However, the JobMaster only thinks in terms of slots and not TMs. Thus, the logic would be that the JM asks the ShuffleMaster whether it can return a certain slot. Atm the freeing of slots is done by the `SlotPool` and, thus this would couple the `SlotPool` and the `ShuffleMaster`. Maybe we need to introduce some mechanism to signal when a slot has still some occupied resources. In the shared slot case, one could think of allocating a dummy slot in the shared slot which we only release after the partition data has been consumed. In order to give this design document a little bit more visibility, I would suggest to post it again on the dev mailing list in a separate thread under the title "[DISCUSS] Flip-31: Pluggable Shuffle Manager" or something like this. Cheers, Till On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 7:05 AM zhijiang wrote: Hi all, FYI, I created the FLIP-31 under [1] for this proposal and created some subtasks under umbrella jira [2]. Welcome any concerns in previous google doc or speific jiras. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-31%3A+Pluggable+Shuffle+Manager [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10653 Best, Zhijiang -- From:zhijiang Send Time:2019年1月15日(星期二) 17:55 To:Andrey Zagrebin Cc:dev Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service Hi all, After continuous discussion with Andrey offline, we already reach an agreement for this proposal and co-author the latest google doc under [1]. We plan to create FLIP and sub-tasks by the end of this week, and the first MVP wishes to be covered in FLINK 1.8. Welcome any feedbacks and suggestions! :) [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l7yIVNH3HATP4BnjEOZFkO2CaHf1sVn_DSxS2llmkd8/edit?usp=sharing Best, Zhijiang -- From:zhijiang Send Time:2018年12月25日(星期二) 15:33 To:Andrey Zagrebin Cc:dev Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service Hi Andrey, Thanks for efficient response for the UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor issue. It is reasonable for considering this special case on both ShuffleMaster and ShuffleService sides. On upstream ShuffleService side, the created ResultPartitionWriter decides whether to notify ShuffleMaster of consumable partition when outputs the first buffer or finishes. On ShuffleMaster side, it might define a method in ShuffleMaster interface for handling this notification message from upstream side, and then internally decide whether to update partition info for downstream sides or not. On downstream ShuffleService side, it might define a method in ShuffleService interface to handle the update partition info message from ShuffleMaster, then it can find the corresponding created InputGate to update. The communication between ShuffleService and ShuffleMaster can make use of TMGateway & JMGateway for current implementation. Certainly it ca
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Hi Zhijiang, I see there’s a YarnShuffleService in newly released Blink branch. Is there any relationship between that YarnShuffleService and your external shuffle service? Regards, Qi > On Jan 28, 2019, at 8:07 PM, zhijiang > wrote: > > Hi till, > > Very glad to receive your feedbacks and it is atually very helpful. > > The proposed ShuffleMaster in JM would be involved in many existing > processes, such as task deployment, task failover, TM release, so it might be > interactive with corresponding Scheduler, FailoverStrategy, SlotPool > components. In the first version we try to focus on deploying process which > is described in detail in the FLIP. Concerning the other improvements based > on the proposed architecuture, we just mentioned the basic ideas and have not > given the whole detail process. But I think it is reasonable and natural to > solve these issues based on that. And we would further give more details for > other future steps. > > I totally agree with your thought of handling TM release. Currently once the > task is finished, the corresponding slot is regared as free no matter whether > the produced partition is consumed or not. Actually we could think both task > and its partitionsoccupy resources in slot. So the slot can be regared as > free until the internal partition is consumed and released. Then the TM > release logic is also improved meanwhile. I think your suggestions below > already gives the detail and specific process for this improvement. > > I am in favor of launching a separate thread for this discussion again, > thanks for the advice! > > Best, > Zhijiang > > > -- > From:Till Rohrmann > Send Time:2019年1月28日(星期一) 19:14 > To:dev ; zhijiang > Cc:Andrey Zagrebin > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Thanks for creating the FLIP-31 for the external shuffle service Zhijiang. It > looks good to me. > > One thing which is not fully clear to me yet is how the lifecycle management > of the partitions integrates with the slot management. At the moment, > conceptually we consider the partition data being owned by the TM if I > understood it correctly. This means the ShuffleMaster is asked whether a TM > can be freed. However, the JobMaster only thinks in terms of slots and not > TMs. Thus, the logic would be that the JM asks the ShuffleMaster whether it > can return a certain slot. Atm the freeing of slots is done by the `SlotPool` > and, thus this would couple the `SlotPool` and the `ShuffleMaster`. Maybe we > need to introduce some mechanism to signal when a slot has still some > occupied resources. In the shared slot case, one could think of allocating a > dummy slot in the shared slot which we only release after the partition data > has been consumed. > > In order to give this design document a little bit more visibility, I would > suggest to post it again on the dev mailing list in a separate thread under > the title "[DISCUSS] Flip-31: Pluggable Shuffle Manager" or something like > this. > > Cheers, > Till > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 7:05 AM zhijiang > wrote: > Hi all, > > FYI, I created the FLIP-31 under [1] for this proposal and created some > subtasks under umbrella jira [2]. > Welcome any concerns in previous google doc or speific jiras. > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-31%3A+Pluggable+Shuffle+Manager > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10653 > > Best, > Zhijiang > -- > From:zhijiang > Send Time:2019年1月15日(星期二) 17:55 > To:Andrey Zagrebin > Cc:dev > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Hi all, > > After continuous discussion with Andrey offline, we already reach an > agreement for this proposal and co-author the latest google doc under [1]. > > We plan to create FLIP and sub-tasks by the end of this week, and the first > MVP wishes to be covered in FLINK 1.8. > > Welcome any feedbacks and suggestions! :) > > [1] > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l7yIVNH3HATP4BnjEOZFkO2CaHf1sVn_DSxS2llmkd8/edit?usp=sharing > > Best, > Zhijiang > > > -- > From:zhijiang > Send Time:2018年12月25日(星期二) 15:33 > To:Andrey Zagrebin > Cc:dev > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Hi Andrey, > > Thanks for efficient response for the UnknownShuffleDeploymentDescriptor > issue. > > It is reasonable for considering this special case on both ShuffleMaster and >
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Hi Qi, Thanks for the concerns of this proposal. In Blink we implemented the YarnShuffleService which is mainly used for batch jobs in production and some benchmark before. This YarnShuffleService is not within the current proposed ShuffleManager interface and there is also no ShuffleMaster component in JM side. You can regard that as a simple and special implementation version. And the YarnShuffleService can further be refactored within this proposed shuffle manager architecture. Best, Zhijiang -- From:qi luo Send Time:2019年1月28日(星期一) 20:55 To:dev ; zhijiang Cc:Till Rohrmann ; Andrey Zagrebin Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service Hi Zhijiang, I see there’s a YarnShuffleService in newly released Blink branch. Is there any relationship between that YarnShuffleService and your external shuffle service? Regards, Qi > On Jan 28, 2019, at 8:07 PM, zhijiang > wrote: > > Hi till, > > Very glad to receive your feedbacks and it is atually very helpful. > > The proposed ShuffleMaster in JM would be involved in many existing > processes, such as task deployment, task failover, TM release, so it might be > interactive with corresponding Scheduler, FailoverStrategy, SlotPool > components. In the first version we try to focus on deploying process which > is described in detail in the FLIP. Concerning the other improvements based > on the proposed architecuture, we just mentioned the basic ideas and have not > given the whole detail process. But I think it is reasonable and natural to > solve these issues based on that. And we would further give more details for > other future steps. > > I totally agree with your thought of handling TM release. Currently once the > task is finished, the corresponding slot is regared as free no matter whether > the produced partition is consumed or not. Actually we could think both task > and its partitionsoccupy resources in slot. So the slot can be regared as > free until the internal partition is consumed and released. Then the TM > release logic is also improved meanwhile. I think your suggestions below > already gives the detail and specific process for this improvement. > > I am in favor of launching a separate thread for this discussion again, > thanks for the advice! > > Best, > Zhijiang > > > -- > From:Till Rohrmann > Send Time:2019年1月28日(星期一) 19:14 > To:dev ; zhijiang > Cc:Andrey Zagrebin > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Thanks for creating the FLIP-31 for the external shuffle service Zhijiang. It > looks good to me. > > One thing which is not fully clear to me yet is how the lifecycle management > of the partitions integrates with the slot management. At the moment, > conceptually we consider the partition data being owned by the TM if I > understood it correctly. This means the ShuffleMaster is asked whether a TM > can be freed. However, the JobMaster only thinks in terms of slots and not > TMs. Thus, the logic would be that the JM asks the ShuffleMaster whether it > can return a certain slot. Atm the freeing of slots is done by the `SlotPool` > and, thus this would couple the `SlotPool` and the `ShuffleMaster`. Maybe we > need to introduce some mechanism to signal when a slot has still some > occupied resources. In the shared slot case, one could think of allocating a > dummy slot in the shared slot which we only release after the partition data > has been consumed. > > In order to give this design document a little bit more visibility, I would > suggest to post it again on the dev mailing list in a separate thread under > the title "[DISCUSS] Flip-31: Pluggable Shuffle Manager" or something like > this. > > Cheers, > Till > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 7:05 AM zhijiang > wrote: > Hi all, > > FYI, I created the FLIP-31 under [1] for this proposal and created some > subtasks under umbrella jira [2]. > Welcome any concerns in previous google doc or speific jiras. > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-31%3A+Pluggable+Shuffle+Manager > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10653 > > Best, > Zhijiang > -- > From:zhijiang > Send Time:2019年1月15日(星期二) 17:55 > To:Andrey Zagrebin > Cc:dev > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Hi all, > > After continuous discussion with Andrey offline, we already reach an > agreement for this proposal and co-author the latest google doc under [1]. > > We plan to create
Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Very clear. Thanks! > On Jan 28, 2019, at 10:29 PM, zhijiang wrote: > > Hi Qi, > > Thanks for the concerns of this proposal. In Blink we implemented the > YarnShuffleService which is mainly used for batch jobs in production and some > benchmark before. This YarnShuffleService is not within the current proposed > ShuffleManager interface and there is also no ShuffleMaster component in JM > side. You can regard that as a simple and special implementation version. And > the YarnShuffleService can further be refactored within this proposed shuffle > manager architecture. > > Best, > Zhijiang > > -- > From:qi luo > Send Time:2019年1月28日(星期一) 20:55 > To:dev ; zhijiang > Cc:Till Rohrmann ; Andrey Zagrebin > > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Hi Zhijiang, > > I see there’s a YarnShuffleService in newly released Blink branch. Is there > any relationship between that YarnShuffleService and your external shuffle > service? > > Regards, > Qi > > > On Jan 28, 2019, at 8:07 PM, zhijiang > > wrote: > > > > Hi till, > > > > Very glad to receive your feedbacks and it is atually very helpful. > > > > The proposed ShuffleMaster in JM would be involved in many existing > > processes, such as task deployment, task failover, TM release, so it might > > be interactive with corresponding Scheduler, FailoverStrategy, SlotPool > > components. In the first version we try to focus on deploying process which > > is described in detail in the FLIP. Concerning the other improvements based > > on the proposed architecuture, we just mentioned the basic ideas and have > > not given the whole detail process. But I think it is reasonable and > > natural to solve these issues based on that. And we would further give more > > details for other future steps. > > > > I totally agree with your thought of handling TM release. Currently once > > the task is finished, the corresponding slot is regared as free no matter > > whether the produced partition is consumed or not. Actually we could think > > both task and its partitionsoccupy resources in slot. So the slot can be > > regared as free until the internal partition is consumed and released. Then > > the TM release logic is also improved meanwhile. I think your suggestions > > below already gives the detail and specific process for this improvement. > > > > I am in favor of launching a separate thread for this discussion again, > > thanks for the advice! > > > > Best, > > Zhijiang > > > > > > -- > > From:Till Rohrmann > > Send Time:2019年1月28日(星期一) 19:14 > > To:dev ; zhijiang > > Cc:Andrey Zagrebin > > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > > > Thanks for creating the FLIP-31 for the external shuffle service Zhijiang. > > It looks good to me. > > > > One thing which is not fully clear to me yet is how the lifecycle > > management of the partitions integrates with the slot management. At the > > moment, conceptually we consider the partition data being owned by the TM > > if I understood it correctly. This means the ShuffleMaster is asked whether > > a TM can be freed. However, the JobMaster only thinks in terms of slots and > > not TMs. Thus, the logic would be that the JM asks the ShuffleMaster > > whether it can return a certain slot. Atm the freeing of slots is done by > > the `SlotPool` and, thus this would couple the `SlotPool` and the > > `ShuffleMaster`. Maybe we need to introduce some mechanism to signal when a > > slot has still some occupied resources. In the shared slot case, one could > > think of allocating a dummy slot in the shared slot which we only release > > after the partition data has been consumed. > > > > In order to give this design document a little bit more visibility, I would > > suggest to post it again on the dev mailing list in a separate thread under > > the title "[DISCUSS] Flip-31: Pluggable Shuffle Manager" or something like > > this. > > > > Cheers, > > Till > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 7:05 AM zhijiang > > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > FYI, I created the FLIP-31 under [1] for this proposal and created some > > subtasks under umbrella jira [2]. > > Welcome any concerns in previous google doc or speific jiras. > > > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP
回复：[DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Glad to receive your positive feedbacks Till! Actually our motivation is to support batch job well as you mentioned. For output level, flink already has the Subpartition abstraction(writer), and currently there are PipelinedSubpartition(memory output) and SpillableSubpartition(one-sp-one-file output) implementations. We can extend this abstraction to realize other persistent outputs (e.g. sort-merge-file). For transport level(shuffle service), the current SubpartitionView abstraction(reader) seems as the brige linked with the output level, then the view can understand and read the different output formats. The current NetworkEnvironment seems take the role of internal shuffle service in TaskManager and the transport server is realized by netty inside. This component can also be started in other external containers like NodeManager of yarn to take the role of external shuffle service. Further we can abstract to extend the shuffle service for transporting outputs by http or rdma instead of current netty. This abstraction should provide the way for output registration in order to read the results correctly, similar with current SubpartitionView. The above is still a rough idea. Next I plan to create a feature jira to cover the related changes if possible. It would be better if getting help from related committers to review the detail designs together. Best, Zhijiang -- 发件人：Till Rohrmann 发送时间：2018年8月29日(星期三) 17:36 收件人：dev ; Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service Thanks for starting this design discussion Zhijiang! I really like the idea to introduce a ShuffleService abstraction which allows to have different implementations depending on the actual use case. Especially for batch jobs I can clearly see the benefits of persisting the results somewhere else. Do you already know which interfaces we need to extend and where to introduce new abstractions? Cheers, Till On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:57 PM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) wrote: Hi all! The shuffle service is responsible for transporting upstream produced data to the downstream side. In flink, the NettyServer is used for network transport service and this component is started in the TaskManager process. That means the TaskManager can support internal shuffle service which exists some concerns: 1. If a task finishes, the ResultPartition of this task still retains registered in TaskManager, because the output buffers have to be transported by internal shuffle service in TaskManager. That means the TaskManager can not be released by ResourceManager until ResultPartition released. It may waste container resources and can not support well for dynamic resource scenarios. 2. If we want to expand another shuffle service implementation, the current mechanism is not easy to handle, because the output level (result partition) and transport level (shuffle service) are not divided clearly and loss of abstraction to be extended. For above considerations, we propose the external shuffle service which can be deployed on any other external contaienrs, e.g. NodeManager container in yarn. Then the TaskManager can be released ASAP ifneeded when all the internal tasks finished. The persistent output files of these finished tasks can be served to transport by external shuffle service in the same machine. Further we can abstract both of the output level and transport level to support different implementations. e.g. We realized merging the data of all the subpartitions into limited persistent local files for disk improvements in some scenarios instead of one-subpartiton-one-file. I know it may be a big work for doing this, and I just point out some ideas, and wish getting any feedbacks from you! Best, Zhijiang
回复：[DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Many thanks Till! I would create a JIRA for this feature and design a document attched with it. I will let you know after ready! :) Best, Zhijiang -- 发件人：Till Rohrmann 发送时间：2018年9月7日(星期五) 22:01 收件人：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) 抄 送：dev 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service The rough plan sounds good Zhijiang. I think we should continue with what you've proposed: Open a JIRA issue and creating a design document which outlines the required changes a little bit more in detail. Once this is done, we should link the design document in the JIRA issue and post it here for further discussion. Cheers, Till On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:04 PM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) < wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> wrote: > Glad to receive your positive feedbacks Till! > > Actually our motivation is to support batch job well as you mentioned. > > For output level, flink already has the Subpartition abstraction(writer), > and currently there are PipelinedSubpartition(memory output) and > SpillableSubpartition(one-sp-one-file output) implementations. We can > extend this abstraction to realize other persistent outputs (e.g. > sort-merge-file). > > For transport level(shuffle service), the current SubpartitionView > abstraction(reader) seems as the brige linked with the output level, then > the view can understand and read the different output formats. The current > NetworkEnvironment seems take the role of internal shuffle service in > TaskManager and the transport server is realized by netty inside. This > component can also be started in other external containers like NodeManager > of yarn to take the role of external shuffle service. Further we can > abstract to extend the shuffle service for transporting outputs by http or > rdma instead of current netty. This abstraction should provide the way for > output registration in order to read the results correctly, similar with > current SubpartitionView. > > The above is still a rough idea. Next I plan to create a feature jira to > cover the related changes if possible. It would be better if getting help > from related committers to review the detail designs together. > > Best, > Zhijiang > > -- > 发件人：Till Rohrmann > 发送时间：2018年8月29日(星期三) 17:36 > 收件人：dev ; Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) < > wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> > 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Thanks for starting this design discussion Zhijiang! > > I really like the idea to introduce a ShuffleService abstraction which > allows to have different implementations depending on the actual use case. > Especially for batch jobs I can clearly see the benefits of persisting the > results somewhere else. > > Do you already know which interfaces we need to extend and where to > introduce new abstractions? > > Cheers, > Till > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:57 PM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) > wrote: > Hi all! > > The shuffle service is responsible for transporting upstream produced data > to the downstream side. In flink, the NettyServer is used for network > transport service and this component is started in the TaskManager process. > That means the TaskManager can support internal shuffle service which > exists some concerns: > 1. If a task finishes, the ResultPartition of this task still retains > registered in TaskManager, because the output buffers have to be > transported by internal shuffle service in TaskManager. That means the > TaskManager can not be released by ResourceManager until ResultPartition > released. It may waste container resources and can not support well for > dynamic resource scenarios. > 2. If we want to expand another shuffle service implementation, the > current mechanism is not easy to handle, because the output level (result > partition) and transport level (shuffle service) are not divided clearly > and loss of abstraction to be extended. > > For above considerations, we propose the external shuffle service which > can be deployed on any other external contaienrs, e.g. NodeManager > container in yarn. Then the TaskManager can be released ASAP ifneeded when > all the internal tasks finished. The persistent output files of these > finished tasks can be served to transport by external shuffle service in > the same machine. > > Further we can abstract both of the output level and transport level to > support different implementations. e.g. We realized merging the data of all > the subpartitions into limited persistent local files for disk improvements > in some scenarios instead of one-subpartiton-one-file. > > I know it may be a big work for doing this, and I just point out some > ideas, and wish getting any feedbacks from you! > > Best, > Zhijiang > > >
回复：[DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
I already created the umbrella jira [1] for this improvement, and attched the design doc [2] in this jira. Welcome for further discussion about the details. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10653 [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jb0Mf46ace-6cLRQxJzo6VNQQVxn3hwf9Zqmv5pcb34/edit?usp=sharing Best, Zhijiang -- 发件人：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) 发送时间：2018年9月11日(星期二) 15:21 收件人：dev 抄 送：dev 主 题：回复：[DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service Many thanks Till! I would create a JIRA for this feature and design a document attched with it. I will let you know after ready! :) Best, Zhijiang -- 发件人：Till Rohrmann 发送时间：2018年9月7日(星期五) 22:01 收件人：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) 抄 送：dev 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service The rough plan sounds good Zhijiang. I think we should continue with what you've proposed: Open a JIRA issue and creating a design document which outlines the required changes a little bit more in detail. Once this is done, we should link the design document in the JIRA issue and post it here for further discussion. Cheers, Till On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:04 PM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) < wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> wrote: > Glad to receive your positive feedbacks Till! > > Actually our motivation is to support batch job well as you mentioned. > > For output level, flink already has the Subpartition abstraction(writer), > and currently there are PipelinedSubpartition(memory output) and > SpillableSubpartition(one-sp-one-file output) implementations. We can > extend this abstraction to realize other persistent outputs (e.g. > sort-merge-file). > > For transport level(shuffle service), the current SubpartitionView > abstraction(reader) seems as the brige linked with the output level, then > the view can understand and read the different output formats. The current > NetworkEnvironment seems take the role of internal shuffle service in > TaskManager and the transport server is realized by netty inside. This > component can also be started in other external containers like NodeManager > of yarn to take the role of external shuffle service. Further we can > abstract to extend the shuffle service for transporting outputs by http or > rdma instead of current netty. This abstraction should provide the way for > output registration in order to read the results correctly, similar with > current SubpartitionView. > > The above is still a rough idea. Next I plan to create a feature jira to > cover the related changes if possible. It would be better if getting help > from related committers to review the detail designs together. > > Best, > Zhijiang > > -- > 发件人：Till Rohrmann > 发送时间：2018年8月29日(星期三) 17:36 > 收件人：dev ; Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) < > wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> > 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service > > Thanks for starting this design discussion Zhijiang! > > I really like the idea to introduce a ShuffleService abstraction which > allows to have different implementations depending on the actual use case. > Especially for batch jobs I can clearly see the benefits of persisting the > results somewhere else. > > Do you already know which interfaces we need to extend and where to > introduce new abstractions? > > Cheers, > Till > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:57 PM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) > wrote: > Hi all! > > The shuffle service is responsible for transporting upstream produced data > to the downstream side. In flink, the NettyServer is used for network > transport service and this component is started in the TaskManager process. > That means the TaskManager can support internal shuffle service which > exists some concerns: > 1. If a task finishes, the ResultPartition of this task still retains > registered in TaskManager, because the output buffers have to be > transported by internal shuffle service in TaskManager. That means the > TaskManager can not be released by ResourceManager until ResultPartition > released. It may waste container resources and can not support well for > dynamic resource scenarios. > 2. If we want to expand another shuffle service implementation, the > current mechanism is not easy to handle, because the output level (result > partition) and transport level (shuffle service) are not divided clearly > and loss of abstraction to be extended. > > For above considerations, we propose the external shuffle service which > can be deployed on any other external contaienrs, e.g. NodeManager > container in yarn. Then the TaskManager can be released ASAP ifneeded when > all the internal tasks f
回复：[DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Thanks for the efficient response till! Thanks sunjin for the good feedbacks, we will further confirm with the comments then! :) -- 发件人：Jin Sun 发送时间：2018年11月1日(星期四) 06:42 收件人：dev 抄 送：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) ; Nico Kruber ; Piotr Nowojski ; Stephan Ewen 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service Thanks Zhijiang for the proposal. I like the idea of external shuffle service, have left some comments on the document. > On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:26 AM, Till Rohrmann wrote: > > Thanks for the update Zhijiang! The community is currently quite busy with > the next Flink release. I hope that we can finish the release in two weeks. > After that people will become more responsive again. > > Cheers, > Till > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 7:49 AM zhijiang wrote: > >> I already created the umbrella jira [1] for this improvement, and attched >> the design doc [2] in this jira. >> >> Welcome for further discussion about the details. >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10653 >> [2] >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jb0Mf46ace-6cLRQxJzo6VNQQVxn3hwf9Zqmv5pcb34/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jb0Mf46ace-6cLRQxJzo6VNQQVxn3hwf9Zqmv5pcb34/edit?usp=sharing> >> Best, >> Zhijiang >> >> ---------- >> 发件人：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) >> 发送时间：2018年9月11日(星期二) 15:21 >> 收件人：dev >> 抄 送：dev >> 主 题：回复：[DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service >> >> Many thanks Till! >> >> >> I would create a JIRA for this feature and design a document attched with it. >> I will let you know after ready! :) >> >> Best, >> Zhijiang >> >> >> -- >> 发件人：Till Rohrmann >> 发送时间：2018年9月7日(星期五) 22:01 >> 收件人：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) >> 抄 送：dev >> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service >> >> The rough plan sounds good Zhijiang. I think we should continue with what >> you've proposed: Open a JIRA issue and creating a design document which >> outlines the required changes a little bit more in detail. Once this is >> done, we should link the design document in the JIRA issue and post it here >> for further discussion. >> >> Cheers, >> Till >> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:04 PM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) < >> wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> wrote: >> >>> Glad to receive your positive feedbacks Till! >>> >>> Actually our motivation is to support batch job well as you mentioned. >>> >>> For output level, flink already has the Subpartition abstraction(writer), >>> and currently there are PipelinedSubpartition(memory output) and >>> SpillableSubpartition(one-sp-one-file output) implementations. We can >>> extend this abstraction to realize other persistent outputs (e.g. >>> sort-merge-file). >>> >>> For transport level(shuffle service), the current SubpartitionView >>> abstraction(reader) seems as the brige linked with the output level, then >> >>> the view can understand and read the different output formats. The current >>> NetworkEnvironment seems take the role of internal shuffle service in >>> TaskManager and the transport server is realized by netty inside. This >> >>> component can also be started in other external containers like NodeManager >>> of yarn to take the role of external shuffle service. Further we can >> >>> abstract to extend the shuffle service for transporting outputs by http or >> >>> rdma instead of current netty. This abstraction should provide the way for >>> output registration in order to read the results correctly, similar with >>> current SubpartitionView. >>> >>> The above is still a rough idea. Next I plan to create a feature jira to >>> cover the related changes if possible. It would be better if getting help >>> from related committers to review the detail designs together. >>> >>> Best, >>> Zhijiang >>> >>> -- >>> 发件人：Till Rohrmann >>> 发送时间：2018年8月29日(星期三) 17:36 >>> 收件人：dev ; Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) < >>> wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> >>> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service >>> >>> Thanks for starting this design discussion Zhijiang! >>> >>&
回复：[DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Hi all, I adjusted the umbrella jira [1] and corresponding google doc [2] to narrow down the scope of introducing pluggable shuffle manager architecture as the first step. Welcome further feedbacks and suggestions, then I would create specific subtasks for it to forward. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10653 [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ssTu8QE8RnF31zal4JHM1VaVENow-PweUtXSRr68nGg/edit?usp=sharing -- 发件人：zhijiang 发送时间：2018年11月1日(星期四) 17:19 收件人：dev ; Jin Sun 抄 送：Nico Kruber ; Piotr Nowojski ; Stephan Ewen 主 题：回复：[DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service Thanks for the efficient response till! Thanks sunjin for the good feedbacks, we will further confirm with the comments then! :) -- 发件人：Jin Sun 发送时间：2018年11月1日(星期四) 06:42 收件人：dev 抄 送：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) ; Nico Kruber ; Piotr Nowojski ; Stephan Ewen 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service Thanks Zhijiang for the proposal. I like the idea of external shuffle service, have left some comments on the document. > On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:26 AM, Till Rohrmann wrote: > > Thanks for the update Zhijiang! The community is currently quite busy with > the next Flink release. I hope that we can finish the release in two weeks. > After that people will become more responsive again. > > Cheers, > Till > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 7:49 AM zhijiang wrote: > >> I already created the umbrella jira [1] for this improvement, and attched >> the design doc [2] in this jira. >> >> Welcome for further discussion about the details. >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10653 >> [2] >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jb0Mf46ace-6cLRQxJzo6VNQQVxn3hwf9Zqmv5pcb34/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jb0Mf46ace-6cLRQxJzo6VNQQVxn3hwf9Zqmv5pcb34/edit?usp=sharing> >> Best, >> Zhijiang >> >> ---------- >> 发件人：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) >> 发送时间：2018年9月11日(星期二) 15:21 >> 收件人：dev >> 抄 送：dev >> 主 题：回复：[DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service >> >> Many thanks Till! >> >> >> I would create a JIRA for this feature and design a document attched with it. >> I will let you know after ready! :) >> >> Best, >> Zhijiang >> >> >> -- >> 发件人：Till Rohrmann >> 发送时间：2018年9月7日(星期五) 22:01 >> 收件人：Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) >> 抄 送：dev >> 主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service >> >> The rough plan sounds good Zhijiang. I think we should continue with what >> you've proposed: Open a JIRA issue and creating a design document which >> outlines the required changes a little bit more in detail. Once this is >> done, we should link the design document in the JIRA issue and post it here >> for further discussion. >> >> Cheers, >> Till >> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 6:04 PM Zhijiang(wangzhijiang999) < >> wangzhijiang...@aliyun.com> wrote: >> >>> Glad to receive your positive feedbacks Till! >>> >>> Actually our motivation is to support batch job well as you mentioned. >>> >>> For output level, flink already has the Subpartition abstraction(writer), >>> and currently there are PipelinedSubpartition(memory output) and >>> SpillableSubpartition(one-sp-one-file output) implementations. We can >>> extend this abstraction to realize other persistent outputs (e.g. >>> sort-merge-file). >>> >>> For transport level(shuffle service), the current SubpartitionView >>> abstraction(reader) seems as the brige linked with the output level, then >> >>> the view can understand and read the different output formats. The current >>> NetworkEnvironment seems take the role of internal shuffle service in >>> TaskManager and the transport server is realized by netty inside. This >> >>> component can also be started in other external containers like NodeManager >>> of yarn to take the role of external shuffle service. Further we can >> >>> abstract to extend the shuffle service for transporting outputs by http or >> >>> rdma instead of current netty. This abstraction should provide the way for >>> output registration in order to read the results correctly, similar with >>> current SubpartitionView. >>> >>> The above is still a rough idea. Next I plan to cre
回复：[DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
plementations. So it
also makes sense on my side to keep this interface. As for
ShuffleServiceRegistry class, I agree with you to have this TaskManager level
service for managing and sharing for all the internal tasks.
In summary, I think we do not have essential conflicts for above issues, almost
for the implementation aspects. And I agree with the above points, especially
for above 2.2 you might need double check if I understand correctly.
Wish your further feedbacks then I can adjust the docs based on it. Also
welcome any other person's feedbacks!
Best,
Zhijiang
--
发件人：Andrey Zagrebin
发送时间：2018年12月10日(星期一) 05:18
收件人：dev ; zhijiang
抄 送：Nico Kruber ; Piotr Nowojski
; Stephan Ewen ; Till Rohrmann
主 题：Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal of external shuffle service
Hi Zhijiang,
Thanks for sharing the document Zhijiang.
I decided to compile my thoughts to consider here, not to overload document
comments any more :)
I think I still have question about job level configuration for the shuffle
service. You mentioned that we can keep several shuffle manager objects in one
task executor for different jobs. This is valid. My concerns are:
- how do we share shuffle manager resources among different job tasks within
one task executor process? It could be some static objects shared by all
shuffle manager objects of some type but it might be not scalable approach.
Example could be multiplexed netty connections (as I understand, current netty
stack can become just custom shuffle service).
- In case of having it per job, we might need to provide compatibility check
between shuffle service and cluster mode (e.g. yarn ext shuffle service for
standalone mode cluster) if it is an issue.
- Having it per job feels like the same complexity as having it per operator,
at the first glance, just changes its granularity and where objects reside.
- what is the problem to use cluster per job mode? Then shuffle manager per
cluster and per job is the same but might simplify other issues at the
beginning. Streaming and batch jobs with different shuffle requirements could
be started in different clusters per job.
As for ShuffleManager interface, I think I see your point with the
ResultPartitionLocation. I agree that partition needs some addressing of
underlying connection or resources in general. It can be thinked of as an
argument of ShuffleManager factory methods.
My point is that task code might not need to be coupled to shuffle interface.
This way we could keep task code more independent of records transfer layer. We
can always change later how shuffle/network service is organised internally
without any consequences for the general task code. If task code calls just
factories provided by JM, it might not even matter for the task in future
whether it is configured per cluster, job or operator. Internally, factory can
hold location of concrete type if needed.
Code example could be:
Job Manager side:
interface ShuffleManager {
ResultPartionWriterFactory createResultPartionWriterFactory(job/task/topology
descriptors);
// similar for input gate factory
}
class ShuffleManagerImpl implements ShuffleManager {
private general config, services etc;
ResultPartionWriterFactory createResultPartionWriterFactory(job/task/topology
descriptors) {
return new ResultPartionWriterFactoryImpl(location, job, oper id, other
specific config etc);
}
// similar for input gate factory
}
...
// somewhere in higher level code put ResultPartionWriterFactory into descriptor
Task executor side receives the factory inside the descriptor and calls
factory.create(ShuffleServiceRegistry). Example of factory:
class ResultPartionWriterFactoryImpl implements ResultPartionWriterFactory {
// all fields are lightweight and serialisable, received from JM
private location, shuffle service id, other specific config etc;
ResultPartionWriter create(ShuffleServiceRegistry registry, maybe more generic
args) {
// get or create task local specific ShuffleServiceImpl by id in registry
// ShuffleServiceImpl object can be shared between jobs
// register with the ShuffleServiceImpl by location, id, config etc
}
}
interface ShuffleService extends AutoClosable {
getId();
}
ShuffleServiceImpl manages resources and decides internally whether to do it
per task executor, task, job or operator. It can contain network stack, e,g,
netty connections etc. In case of external service, it can hold partition
manager, transport client etc. It is not enforced to have it per job by this
contract or even to have it at all. ShuffleServiceImpl also does not need to
depend on all TaskManagerServices, only create relevant inside, e.g. network.
class ShuffleServiceRegistry {
T getShuffleService(id);
registerShuffleService(ShuffleService, id);
deregisterShuffleService(id); // remove and close ShuffleService
close(); // close all
}
ShuffleServiceRegistry
