Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FLINK-17332][k8s] Fix restart policy not equals to Never for native task manager pods #11949

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

zhengcanbin
Copy link
Contributor

What is the purpose of the change

Currently, we do not explicitly set the RestartPolicy for the task manager pods in the native K8s setups so that it is Always by default. From the K8s RM perspective, the task manager pod itself must not restart the failed Container, the decision for how to deal with the failed task manager pod must always be made by the active job manager.

Therefore, this PR proposes to set the RestartPolicy to Never for the task manager pods.

Brief change log

  • Set Pod.Spec.RestartPolicy to Never in InitTaskManagerDecorator#decorateFlinkPod

Verifying this change

This change added a new unit test:

  • InitTaskManagerDecoratorTest#testRestartPolicy

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

  • Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (no)
  • The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (no)
  • The serializers: (no)
  • The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (no)
  • Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (no)
  • The S3 file system connector: (no)

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (no)
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable)

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit 95dba08 (Thu Apr 30 01:56:00 UTC 2020)

Warnings:

  • No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!

Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.

Review Progress

  • ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
  • ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
  • ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
  • ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
  • ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.


The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required Bot commands
The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

  • @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
  • @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
  • @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
  • @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
  • @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

@flinkbot
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Apr 30, 2020

CI report:

Bot commands The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:
  • @flinkbot run travis re-run the last Travis build
  • @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

@zhengcanbin
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @tisonkun. Could you help review this PR? Thanks a lot!

Copy link
Member

@tisonkun tisonkun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for your contribution @zhengcanbin ! LGTM. Merging...

@tisonkun tisonkun closed this in 04ab8d2 May 6, 2020
RocMarshal pushed a commit to RocMarshal/flink that referenced this pull request May 7, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants