Gaurav, I think if the state copy fails then STRAM should roll back the operator to a checkpoint that is further back than the last checkpoint. If you are saying that you want to preserve the semantic that checkpointed is only called after a checkpoint is completed, I would argue that that guarantee is already pointless in the current implementation since it is always possible for an operator to be rolled back to a checkpoint before it's last completed checkpoint. So, it is already currently possible for some database or file operation performed after a completed checkpoint to be redone after a failure. Because of this I think Thomas's solution makes the most sense. Thomas's solution would also address Chandni's original point that the semantics for the checkpointed call back have been violated. There are operators in our libraries that have depended on the beginWindow(x), endWindow(x), and checkpointed(x) call sequence, which is now broken. We should probably fix that.
Tim On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Gaurav Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > Thomas, > > This was done to preserve checkpointing semantics that is to tell the > operator that its state is preserved. Say if database is updated or files > are moved in checkpointed call but the state copy fails, how to address > such scenarios? > > Thanks > - Gaurav > > > On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:44 PM, Thomas Weise <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Alternatively I would ask why the checkpointed callback needs to wait > until > > the data was copied to HDFS instead upon completion of the state > > serialization. > > > > Thomas > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Chandni Singh <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Gaurav, > >> > >> My question is about why Async was made the default when it changed the > >> semantics of operator callbacks. Your response doesn't answer that. > >> > >> In a way we broke backward compatibility. > >> > >> Chandni > >> > >> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Gaurav Gupta <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> The idea behind Async checkpointing is to unblock operator while the > >> state > >>> is getting transferred to HDFS. > >>> Just to clarify that this beginWindow (x) -> endWindow(x) -> > checkpointed > >>> (x-1 ) should be an ideal sequence, but if the HDFS is slow or for some > >>> other reason transferring the state to HDFS is slow this sequence may > not > >>> hold true. > >>> > >>> Can your use case be addressed by > >>> https://malhar.atlassian.net/browse/APEX-78 < > >>> https://malhar.atlassian.net/browse/APEX-78>? > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> - Gaurav > >>> > >>>> On Nov 22, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Chandni Singh <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> With Async checkpointing the checkpoint callback in CheckpointPoint > >>>> listener is called for a previous window, that is, > >>>> beginWindow (x) -> endWindow(x) -> checkpointed (x-1 ) > >>>> > >>>> This feature was newly introduced. With synchronous checkpointing, the > >>>> behavior was always > >>>> beginWindow(x) -> endWindow(x) -> checkpointed (x) > >>>> > >>>> A lot of operators were written before asynchronous checkpointing was > >>>> introduced and few of them can rely on the sequencing guaranteed by > >>>> synchronous checkpointing. > >>>> > >>>> So why was Async Checkpointed made default? > >>>> > >>>> With how Async checkpoint is today, the complexity to handle transient > >>>> state in checkpointed callback falls on every operator. For eg, lets > >> say > >>>> earlier I had a transient map which I cleared every time the > >> checkpointed > >>>> was called, with async checkpointing this simple task will be a lot > >> more > >>>> complicated. > >>>> > >>>> I think Async checkpointing broke the semantics of operator callbacks > >> and > >>>> should NOT be the default. > >>> > >>> > >> > >
