Single task subpartition reconnection 2

[curcur]

What is the purpose of the change

• This PR includes a simple individual scheduler that can restart the sink for sink failure, so that we can test end-2-end for reconnection + partial partition clean-up;

• I've tested multiple cases including the case a very long record spanning over more than one buffer; short record; reading from the head of a buffer consumer; reading from the middle of a buffer consumer; and e.t.c. They all work perfectly.

• I've also rebased upon Kevin's change on RecordWriter's API, and Zhuzhu's change on pipelinedRegionSchedulingStrategy.

• handle partial flag when sub-partition is partial #13476 handle partial flag when sub-partition is partial

• Single task add partial flag in buffer #13456 Single task add a partial flag in buffer

Brief change log

(for example:)

• The TaskInfo is stored in the blob store on job creation time as a persistent artifact
• Deployments RPC transmits only the blob storage reference
• TaskManagers retrieve the TaskInfo from the blob cache

Verifying this change

(Please pick either of the following options)

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

(or)

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as (please describe tests).

(or)

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

(example:)

• Added integration tests for end-to-end deployment with large payloads (100MB)
• Extended integration test for recovery after master (JobManager) failure
• Added test that validates that TaskInfo is transferred only once across recoveries
• Manually verified the change by running a 4 node cluser with 2 JobManagers and 4 TaskManagers, a stateful streaming program, and killing one JobManager and two TaskManagers during the execution, verifying that recovery happens correctly.

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

• Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (yes / no)
• The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (yes / no)
• The serializers: (yes / no / don't know)
• The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (yes / no / don't know)
• Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (yes / no / don't know)
• The S3 file system connector: (yes / no / don't know)

Documentation

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

[flinkbot]

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 67d192e (Sun Sep 27 08:22:18 UTC 2020)

Warnings:

• No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!
• Invalid pull request title: No valid Jira ID provided

_{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.

Details

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]

CI report:

• 67d192e Azure: FAILURE

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

[AHeise]

Approach looks good. I'd definitively would like to see the field approach to store the full length, but you wrote that you will do that on the final PR, so I'm ignoring it here.

[AHeise]

As far as I have understood it, this strategy is only usable for failures in sinks (or sink-like nodes) yet, right?
For the final PR, we need to make sure that users do not pick it incorrectly. Maybe it's even too early to introduce it at the current point in time.

[curcur]

That's right. This is for end-2-end testing purpose.