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-23041][streaming] Added new well defined checkpoint configuration aligned-checkpoint-timeout instead of alignment-timeout #16227

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

akalash
Copy link
Contributor

@akalash akalash commented Jun 21, 2021

What is the purpose of the change

This PR adds new configuration aligned-checkpoint-timeout instead of alignment-timeout

Brief change log

-alignment-timeout was deprecated
-aligned-checkpoint-timeout was added. It represents time since the global start of the checkpoint after which AC switches to UC

Verifying this change

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

  • Added tests in AlternatingCheckpointTest

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
Copy link
Collaborator

flinkbot commented Jun 21, 2021

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 4fa243a (Thu Sep 23 17:53:02 UTC 2021)

Warnings:

  • Documentation files were touched, but no docs/content.zh/ files: Update Chinese documentation or file Jira ticket.

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 Jun 21, 2021

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

@akalash akalash force-pushed the flink-23041 branch 4 times, most recently from 757fe73 to 9a20519 Compare June 23, 2021 14:53
Copy link
Contributor

@dawidwys dawidwys left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall looks good. Had one comment to the code. Could you also update the UC documentation page? https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-master/docs/ops/state/unaligned_checkpoints/ I think adding a sentence or two about what does the timeout mean would be a nice touch.

@@ -207,6 +208,7 @@ public int hashCode() {
checkpointRetentionPolicy,
isExactlyOnce,
isUnalignedCheckpointsEnabled,
alignedCheckpointTimeout,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good catch!

@@ -101,10 +101,10 @@
"type" : "object",
"id" : "urn:jsonschema:org:apache:flink:runtime:rest:messages:DashboardConfiguration:Features",
"properties" : {
"web-submit" : {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Out of curiosity. Do you know where does the reordering comes from? Is the file autogenerated? If you don't know don't bother looking for an answer.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This file is autogenerated but it looks like it is generated in alphabet order so it should be correct now. I can only guess but perhaps, initially, the author made these changes manually

… to UC is based on the global checkpoint start time rather than the local first barrier received time
…n aligned-checkpoint-timeout instead of alignment-timeout
@akalash akalash force-pushed the flink-23041 branch 2 times, most recently from 0f55f18 to 8613d50 Compare June 28, 2021 13:32
@akalash
Copy link
Contributor Author

akalash commented Jun 28, 2021

@dawidwys, I added the documentation - https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/16227/files#diff-330cebde422d7911fd9cb5f32e58770389b13862cb372e6fdb276ba44bb3c4ac, I don't really sure what should I do with the old alignment timeout but as you can see I just deprecated it. I hope it is ok

@dawidwys
Copy link
Contributor

Let's just drop the old value. It wasn't properly advertised and I think it doesn't make much sense to document it on that general page.

Copy link
Contributor

@dawidwys dawidwys left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants