[FLINK-13445] Add 'jobmanager.containerized.heap-cutoff-{min,ratio}' …

[dmvk]

What is the purpose of the change

• Distinguish Memory Configuration for TaskManager and JobManager

Brief change log

(for example:)

• Allow to override jobmanager containerized.heap-cutoff-{min,ratio}

Verifying this change

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

*added test for config fallback

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, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (yes)
• The S3 file system connector: (no)

Documentation

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (yes)
• If yes, how is the feature documented? (docs)

[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 0b17012 (Wed Oct 16 08:44:18 UTC 2019)

Warnings:

• No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!
• This pull request references an unassigned Jira ticket. According to the code contribution guide, tickets need to be assigned before starting with the implementation work.

_{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]

CI report:

• d28b03f : UNKNOWN
• 45e170d : FAILURE Build
• e199aa8 : FAILURE Build
• 0b17012 : SUCCESS Build

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot run travis re-run the last Travis build

[dmvk]

@tillrohrmann would you have time to look at this one? Thanks

D.

[StephanEwen]

As mentioned in the JIRA discussion, we may want to solve this a bit differently.
for the TM, we are moving away from this "cutoff" value, because it seems not flexible/specific enough.

We may want to do the same on the JM as well.

[aljoscha]

@StephanEwen @dmvk @tillrohrmann what's the state on this? Do we close the PR since we want to solve it a different way?

[dmvk]

@aljoscha closing this as there was no consensus on jira. Can you please close the jira as well?