It seems my questions are misunderstood to be about details on
implementations, but actually my concerns are from the users' view,
especially how to understand the new APIs and how to choose/use them.
To better express my concern, let's list the new APIs this FLIP proposes to
introduce:
*env.getCheckpointConfig().setCheckpointStorage(new
JobManagerCheckpointStorage());env.getCheckpointConfig().setCheckpointStorage(new
FileSystemCheckpointStorage("s3://checkpoints"));env.getCheckpointConfig().setCheckpointStorage("s3://checkpoints");*
>From the end user's perspective, I will probably ask the below questions:
- As a new Flink user:
a) What does it mean when setting the checkpoint storage to
`JobManagerCheckpointStorage`? And what's the difference between
`JobManagerCheckpointStorage` and `FileSystemCheckpointStorage`?
b) How should I choose between these two?
c) Where the checkpoint data will be stored when using different
checkpoint storage? (As mentioned in the motivation of this FLIP: "Flink's
durability story is a mystery to many users", how the proposal resolves it?)
- As an old user:
a) How should I migrate my old codes to the new API? For example, if now
I'm using `*new RocksDBStateBackend("s3://checkpoints")*`, which checkpoint
storage should I choose with the new API? Could I live w/o setting the
checkpoint storage? If so, which one will it use by default?
The old API is hiding something from the end user, and although I totally
agree it's better to improve it, I believe we need to figure out answers to
the above questions. Or if I have misunderstood anything, please let me
know. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Yu
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 02:42, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
> To me, the simplifications made by Seth sound good and do make a lot of
> sense.
> We should really break this down to a few orthogonal guides, then it is
> easy for users:
>
> - Metadata always goes through the JobManager, no matter what
> CheckpointStorage.
> - The JobManagerCheckpointStorage has the option to put the metadata on a
> file system, to make it externally accessible/addressable, and for master
> failover (HA).
> - The file state size threshold is the threshold where data is stored
> inline with the metadata, rather than in a separate file. Whatever the
> JobManager does with metadata, it is orthogonal.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:59 PM Seth Wiesman <sjwies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Yu,
> >
> > Let me address your comments one at a time.
> >
> > I think I can address comments one and two with a single answer. This
> FLIP
> > does not change any runtime data structures or implementations. As such,
> it
> > only provides new user-facing factory classes for those components.
> > StateBackend (the interface) is effectively a factory for both checkpoint
> > storage and state backends today and I want to move the checkpoint
> storage
> > methods to a new factory interface CheckpointStorage.
> >
> > What this means is JobManagerCheckpointStorage is a factory for
> > MemoryBackendCheckpointStorage and FileSystemCheckpointStorage is a
> factory
> > for FsCheckpointStorage[1]. All configurations from these classes will be
> > made available via the new public APIs. I will make that clear in the
> > document. The semantics of how and where they checkpoint will be dictated
> > by these runtime classes whose implementations are not to be changed.
> >
> > Regarding three, yes, a part of any FLIP is to update the documentation
> and
> > as such, I am not going to explicitly outline it in the document.
> >
> > [1] We might want to rename MemoryBackendCheckpointStorage and
> > FsCheckpointStorage but these are internal classes and as such that
> > discussion does not need to be a part of the FLIP process.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 2:40 AM Yu Li <car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the update Seth, and let me further clarify my comments /
> > > concerns around the new `CheckpointStorage`.
> > >
> > > 1. In the existing `MemoryStateBackend`, there's a `maxStateSize` field
> > > which limits the maximal state size sent to JM from one single memory
> > > backend, with the default size of 5MB. Please make sure to extract this
> > > limitation out and keep it when implementing the new
> > > `JobManagerCheckpointStorage` (as well as writing this down in our FLIP
> > > document).
> > >
> > > 2. We need to confirm the semantic for `JobManagerCheckpointStorage`.
> > > - Currently in `MemoryBackendCheckpointStorage` we will
> > > a) send the checkpoint data to JM and persist it to the remote FS
> > > (included in metadata) if checkpoint path is given, or
> > > b) send the checkpoint data to JM w/o persistency if no
> checkpoint
> > > path given
> > > Does `JobManagerCheckpointStorage` mean checkpoint data will be
> sent
> > to
> > > JM first and JM handles everything afterwards? Literally it seems to be
> > "JM
> > > is the checkpoint storage and no external system required", which
> matches
> > > only to case #b. We need to confirm this and make it clear in our FLIP
> > > document (and explain to our users later).
> > >
> > > 3. Since now we expose the checkpoint storage concept to our users
> > through
> > > the `setCheckpointStorage` API, I suggest to add below notes in our
> > > documents:
> > > a) `JobManagerCheckpointStorage` should be used iff the state size
> is
> > > small enough, and users should take special care not to burst the JM
> > memory
> > > when using it. And JM will also persist the data to remote FS after the
> > > checkpoint is globally completed (depending on our decision of the
> > > semantic).
> > > b) When setting the checkpoint storage to
> > > `FileSystemCheckpointStorage`, there's still chance that the checkpoint
> > > data is sent to JM memory first, decided by the
> > > `state.backend.fs.memory-threshold` configuration (to be honest, I find
> > > this part ambiguous between JM and FS checkpoint storage)
> > >
> > > Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Yu
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 23:02, Seth Wiesman <sjwies...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 1. With `FSStateBackend`, we used to decide where to store the
> > checkpoint
> > > > by the `state.backend.fs.memory-threshold` configuration, and we need
> > to
> > > > decide how to align with this behavior with the new implementation.
> > > >
> > > > I see this configuration available on the FileSystemStorage class.
> I've
> > > > added that to the doc.
> > > >
> > > > 2. With the new implementation, since users could set checkpoint
> > storage
> > > > through API, do we also support the combination of
> > > > `EmbeddedRocksDBStateBackend` with `JobManagerCheckpointStorage`?
> > > >
> > > > This is actually doable today and I don't see any reason to remove
> this
> > > > functionality: new RocksDBStateBackend(new MemoryStateBackend())
> > > >
> > > > 1. There are still some `SnapshotStorage` / `JobManagerSnapshot` left
> > in
> > > > the code samples, please clean them up
> > > >
> > > > Apologies, fixed
> > > >
> > > > 2. Personally I'm in favor of `JobManagerCheckpointStorage` /
> > > > `FileSystemCheckpointStorage` than `JobManagerStorage` /
> > > `FileSystemStorage
> > > >
> > > > That's fine by me
> > > >
> > > > Seth
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 9:36 AM Yu Li <car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > *bq. I agree with your assessment of the CheckpointStorage
> interface
> > > but
> > > > I
> > > > > want to push back at including those changes as a part of this
> FLIP.*
> > > > > Makes sense, will start a separate discussion around this topic
> when
> > > > > prepared.
> > > > >
> > > > > *bq. One option could be to rename "CheckpointStorage" to
> > > > > "CheckpointStorageAccess" and then use the name "CheckpointStorage"
> > > > instead
> > > > > of "SnapshotStorage". *
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > And thanks for updating the document, some comments for the new
> > > version:
> > > > >
> > > > > Questions around migration:
> > > > > 1. With `FSStateBackend`, we used to decide where to store the
> > > checkpoint
> > > > > by the `state.backend.fs.memory-threshold` configuration, and we
> need
> > > to
> > > > > decide how to align with this behavior with the new implementation.
> > > > > 2. With the new implementation, since users could set checkpoint
> > > storage
> > > > > through API, do we also support the combination of
> > > > > `EmbeddedRocksDBStateBackend` with `JobManagerCheckpointStorage`?
> > > > >
> > > > > One answer to the above questions is making
> > > > > `JobManagerCheckpointStorage` internal implementation and use it as
> > the
> > > > > default checkpoint storage. And when user sets to
> > > > > use `FileSystemCheckpointStorage`, we will still switch to
> > > > > `JobManagerCheckpointStorage` when the task checkpoint size is
> > smaller
> > > > than
> > > > > `state.backend.fs.memory-threshold`, even with RocksDB state
> backend.
> > > > This
> > > > > will align with most of the current behavior except for RocksDB
> > backend
> > > > > with really small checkpoint size.
> > > > >
> > > > > Minor issues:
> > > > > 1. There are still some `SnapshotStorage` / `JobManagerSnapshot`
> left
> > > in
> > > > > the code samples, please clean them up
> > > > > 2. Personally I'm in favor of `JobManagerCheckpointStorage` /
> > > > > `FileSystemCheckpointStorage` than `JobManagerStorage` /
> > > > > `FileSystemStorage`
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > Yu
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 01:58, Seth Wiesman <sjwies...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > That makes sense to me, I've updated the FLIP and also took this
> > > chance
> > > > > to
> > > > > > make it clearer what the goals and non-goals of this proposal
> are.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seth
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:17 AM Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just a quick note that it should be possible to rename
> > > > > > "CheckpointStorage"
> > > > > > > because it is a purely internal interface.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looks like the "SnapshotStorage" takes some limited amount of
> > > > > > functionality
> > > > > > > from the "CheckpointStorage", like location pointer resolution.
> > > > > > > One option could be to rename "CheckpointStorage" to
> > > > > > > "CheckpointStorageAccess" and then use the name
> > "CheckpointStorage"
> > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > of "SnapshotStorage".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:47 PM Seth Wiesman <
> > sjwies...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Yu,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've updated the Deprecation / Compatibility / Migration
> > section
> > > to
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > explicitly lay out the steps that we would take as part of
> this
> > > > FLIP.
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > includes your above concerns.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regarding SnapshotStorage vs CheckpointStorage. I'm not sure
> > > users
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > going to have a problem with this. I doubt many people
> outside
> > > this
> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > are familiar with the CheckpointStorage interface today. Even
> > > with
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > changes implemented, most users will not interact with the
> > > > > > > SnapshotStorage
> > > > > > > > interface. They will only ever see JobManagerStorage and
> > > > > > > FileSystemStorage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree with your assessment of the CheckpointStorage
> interface
> > > > but I
> > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > to push back at including those changes as a part of this
> FLIP.
> > > The
> > > > > > goal
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > to simplify users' understanding of state backends and
> > > > > checkpointing. I
> > > > > > > > would like to keep anything related to the runtime or
> internal
> > > as a
> > > > > > > > non-goal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Seth
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:03 AM Yu Li <car...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion and discussion, and sorry for
> being
> > > > late
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > party.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For me, +1 for the idea, but +0 for the current FLIP
> > document.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > First of all, I suggest we explicitly mention the
> deprecation
> > > of
> > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > backends in the document. From the description, we plan to
> > mark
> > > > all
> > > > > > > > > existing backend implementations (i.e.
> > > > > > > > > RocksDBStateBackend/MemoryStateBackend/FSStateBackend) as
> > > > > deprecated,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > in their javadoc we should give the suggestion of migration
> > to
> > > > new
> > > > > > > > > implementations (i.e.
> > > > > > HashMapStateBackend/EmbeddedRocksDBStateBackend).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Secondly, I suggest we explicitly mention the user-facing
> > > changes
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > customized state backends.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To be more specific, the above two should be included in
> the
> > > > > > > > > "Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan" section.
> The
> > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > document already mentioned these two aspects, but IMO not
> > > > explicit
> > > > > > > > enough.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thirdly, we already have a `CheckpointStorage` interface
> and
> > > now
> > > > > > > > > introducing a new `SnapshotStoage`, and I share the same
> > > concern
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > Stephan that these two interfaces might cause confusion,
> and
> > > > > suggest
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > discuss more about this part.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This might sound to be a little bit off-track, but I think
> > it's
> > > > > > > necessary
> > > > > > > > > to review the necessity of the existence of current
> > > > > > > `CheckpointStorage`.
> > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > seems to me that only JM-side logic will use interfaces in
> > > > > > > > > `CheckpointStorageCoordinatorView` and only TM-side logic
> use
> > > > > > > > > `CheckpointStorageWorkerView`, but we combine these two
> > > together.
> > > > > > > What's
> > > > > > > > > more, if we check it carefully, we could find the signature
> > of
> > > > > > > > > `resolveCheckpoint` interface in current `StateBackend` and
> > > > > > > > > `CheckpointStorageCoordinatorView` are exactly the same
> (even
> > > the
> > > > > > > > javadoc),
> > > > > > > > > which means if we simply extract `resolveCheckpoint` out
> into
> > > > > > > > > `SnapshotStorage`, there will be two interfaces with the
> same
> > > > > > signature
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > `SnapshotStorage` and `CheckpointStorage`, which will be
> > really
> > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > Sorry but I don't have a proposal of solution yet, but I
> > > suggest
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > this out clearly.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Yu
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 13:19, Congxian Qiu <
> > > > qcx978132...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the detailed replay, +1 from my side.
> > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > Congxian
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Seth Wiesman <sjwies...@gmail.com> 于2020年9月17日周四
> 上午1:33写道：
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Stephan,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Regarding backward compatibility, I agree and the
> > intention
> > > > is
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > existing code will continue to function with the same
> > > > > semantics.
> > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > working
> > > > > > > > > > > idea is to remove the two checkpoint-storage related
> > > methods
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > StateBackend into a new SnapshotStorage interface but
> > then
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > AbstractFileStateBackend and RocksDBStateBackend
> > implement
> > > > > > snapshot
> > > > > > > > > > > storage. If a state backend implements SnapshotStorage
> it
> > > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > > > > unconditionally, even if a different snapshot storage
> > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > configured. This way we don't change any of the
> concrete
> > > > > classes
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > users
> > > > > > > > > > > interact with. The only people who would see breaking
> > > changes
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > backend implementors and they only need to add
> > `implements
> > > > > > > > > > SnapshotStorage`
> > > > > > > > > > > to their class.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The reason I went with SnapshotStorage is there is
> > already
> > > an
> > > > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > > > > `org.apache.flink.runtime.state.CheckpointStorage` in
> > > > > > > flink-runtime.
> > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > can rename this interface to something else I'm happy
> to
> > > take
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > name,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > if not I think it will lead to import confusion.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Seth
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:54 AM Stephan Ewen <
> > > > > se...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > @Yun and @Congxian:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think "async", "incremental", and similar flags
> > belong
> > > > very
> > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > state backend (the index structure).
> > > > > > > > > > > > They define how the snapshotting procedure behaves.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The SnapshotStorage is really just about storage of
> > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > streams
> > > > > > > > > > > > (bytes) and handles and pointers.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Stephan
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:48 PM Stephan Ewen <
> > > > > se...@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the great suggestion and the great
> > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > Generally
> > > > > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to this effort.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Some thoughts from my side:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *## Backwards Compatibility*
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should really strive to make this non
> > > > breaking.
> > > > > > > Maybe
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > new classes / interfaces for StateBackends and
> > > > > > > CheckpointStorage
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the existing State Backend classes implement both
> > (and
> > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > them)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In the past, I have gotten some harsh comments from
> > > users
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > breaking
> > > > > > > > > > > > > long-time effectively stable APIs, so let's try
> hard
> > to
> > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > (unless
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it makes things impossible).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *## Naming*
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > HashMapStateBackend sounds good to me
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could we rename the SnapshotStorage to
> > > CheckpointStorage?
> > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > converge
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > methods around "Snapshot"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we already have some confusion from mixing
> > the
> > > > > terms
> > > > > > > > > > checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and snapshot and should converge in either
> direction.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am slightly leaning towards converging around
> > > > > checkpoints,
> > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that's the most commonly known term among users as
> > far
> > > > as I
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > tell.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Checkpoints are Snapshots. But one could also just
> > call
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > Checkpoints
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and let Savepoints be special Checkpoints.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *## Integrated State / Storage Backends*
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There is an idea floating around now and then
> about a
> > > > > > Cassandra
> > > > > > > > > > backend
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (or other K/V store) where the state index and
> > durable
> > > > > > location
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > intertwined.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I think this would not contradict, because
> > it
> > > > > might
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that the checkpoint storage is used less (maybe
> only
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > savepoints,
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > WALs).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *## Future Fault Tolerance Ideas*
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this conflicts with none of the future
> fault
> > > > > > tolerance
> > > > > > > > > ideas
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > involved with.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Similar to the above, there is always some
> checkpoint
> > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > involved,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for example for savepoints or for
> > backup/consolidation,
> > > > so
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > problem.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Stephan
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:11 PM Aljoscha Krettek <
> > > > > > > > > > aljos...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think the mentioned settings should be in the
> > state
> > > > > > backend.
> > > > > > > > > They
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> configure how a certain backend writes to a
> snapshot
> > > > > > storage,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > it’s
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> still the backend that has the logic and decides.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think it's a good point, though, to be conscious
> > > about
> > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > settings.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I'm sure we can figure out the details during
> > > > > > implementation,
> > > > > > > > > > though.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Aljoscha
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 16.09.20 16:54, Seth Wiesman wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Congxian,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > There is an allusion to those configs in the
> wiki
> > > but
> > > > > let
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> spell
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > out my thinking. The flink-conf configurations
> > will
> > > > not
> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > and I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > believe the java code switches should remain on
> > the
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > backend
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> objects.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > We are of course not fully disentangling state
> > > > backends
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > snapshots
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > these configurations affect how your state
> backend
> > > > runs
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > production. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > believe users would find it strange to have
> > > > > configurations
> > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > `state.backend.rocksdb.checkpoint.transfer.thred.num`
> > > > > not
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > EmbeddedRocksdbStateBackend but somewhere else.
> > This
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > > leads
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > question, is it better to split configurations
> > > between
> > > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > > > > places
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > not. Users appreciate consistency, and so having
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > configurations
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > the state backend objects makes them more
> > > discoverable
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> application
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > easier to reason about.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Additionally, I view these as advanced
> > > configurations.
> > > > > My
> > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > users can simply use the no-arg constructor for
> a
> > > > state
> > > > > > > > backend
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > production. If a user is changing the number of
> > > > rocksdb
> > > > > > > > transfer
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> threads or
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > disabling async checkpoints, they likely know
> what
> > > > they
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Please let me know if you have any concerns or
> > would
> > > > > like
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > cancel
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Seth
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:37 AM Congxian Qiu <
> > > > > > > > > > > qcx978132...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> Sorry for jump late in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> I like the separation here, this separation
> makes
> > > > more
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > friendly
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> I just wonder how the configuration such as
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 'state.backend.incremental',
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> 'state.backend.async' and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > `state.backend.rocksdb.checkpoint.transfer.thred.num`
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> configured
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> after the separation, I think these
> > configurations
> > > > are
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > related
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> snapshots (maybe a little strange to configure
> > > these
> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > statebackend
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> side).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> did not see this on the FLIP wiki currently.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> Congxian
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> Seth Wiesman <sjwies...@gmail.com>
> 于2020年9月15日周二
> > > > > > 下午9:51写道：
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> Sounds good to me. I'll update the FLIP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 8:35 AM Dawid
> > Wysakowicz <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> dwysakow...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> There is a good number of precedents that
> > > > introduced
> > > > > > > > > backwards
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> incompatible changes to that interface (which
> > is
> > > > > > > > > PublicEvolving
> > > > > > > > > > > > btw).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> We
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> introduced a couple of additional arguments
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> createKeyedStateBackend method and later on
> > > removed
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> default implementation for backwards
> > > > compatibility. I
> > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> introduce
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> a backward incompatible change in FLIP-140
> > > (replace
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> AbstractKeyedStateBackend with an interface).
> > > From
> > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > perspective
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> should just do these changes. The impact
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > > minimal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> Dawid
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> On 15/09/2020 15:20, Seth Wiesman wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>> Hey Dawid,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>> I didn't want to break compatibility but if
> > > there
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > precedent
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> everyone
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>> is ok with it then I'm +1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>> Seth
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 2:22 AM Dawid
> > > Wysakowicz <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> dwysakow...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> Sorry for joining so late.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> Generally speaking I like this idea very
> > much!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> I have one idea about the StateBackend
> > > interface.
> > > > > > Could
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> adding a flag method boolean
> > > isLegacyStateBackend
> > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> checkpointstorage related methods from
> > > > StateBackend
> > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > > away?
> > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> old/legacy implementations could then
> > implement
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > StateBackend
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> SnapshotStorage. In turn in the method
> > > > > > > > env.setStateBackend
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> do:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> setStateBackend(StateBackend backend) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> this.stateBackend = backend;
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> if (backend instanceof
> SnapshotStorage)
> > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> this.setSnapshotStorage(backend);
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> }
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> }
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> This has the benefit that we could already
> > get
> > > > rid
> > > > > > off
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> from
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> StateBackend which would be problematic in
> > the
> > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > implementations
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> (such
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> as e.g. HashMapStateBackend - what would
> you
> > > > return
> > > > > > > > there?
> > > > > > > > > > > > null?).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> know this would break the interface, but
> > > > > StateBackend
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> quite
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> internal, we did it quite freely in the
> past,
> > > > and I
> > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> there
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> are many custom state implementation in the
> > > wild.
> > > > > And
> > > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> are
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> some the workaround is as easy as simply
> > adding
> > > > > > > > implements
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> SnapshotStorage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> Dawid
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> On 11/09/2020 16:48, Aljoscha Krettek
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> I could try and come up with a longer name
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > ;-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> Aljoscha
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> On 11.09.20 16:25, Seth Wiesman wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Having thought about it more,
> > > > HashMapStateBackend
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > won
> > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> over.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> I'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> update the FLIP. If there aren't any more
> > > > > comments
> > > > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > > > > open
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> up
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> voting on monday.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Seth
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 9:09 AM Seth
> > Wiesman <
> > > > > > > > > > > > sjwies...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> @Yun yes, this is really about making
> > > > > > > > CheckpointStorage
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> orthogonal
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> concept. I think we can remain pragmatic
> > and
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > state-backend
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> configurations (async, incremental, etc)
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > backend
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> themselves. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> view these as more advanced
> configurations
> > > and
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> changing the defaults they likely
> > understand
> > > > > what
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > going
> > > > > > > > > > > on.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> My
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> goal is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> to help on-board users and so long as
> each
> > > > state
> > > > > > > > backend
> > > > > > > > > > > has a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> no-arg
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> default constructor that works for many
> > > users
> > > > I
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> achieved
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Regarding the checkpoint coordinator,
> that
> > > > makes
> > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> consider
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> out of the scope of this FLIP. I want to
> > > focus
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > simplifying
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> @Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> My feeling is that state backends and
> > > > > > checkpointing
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > going
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> integral to Flink for many years,
> > regardless
> > > > or
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> enhancements
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> so this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> change is still valuable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Since this is a FLIP about improving the
> > > user
> > > > > api
> > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > happy
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> bikeshed
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the names a little more than normal.
> > HashMap
> > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > > sense,
> > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> other
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> thought
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> was InMemory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Seth
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 8:04 AM Aljoscha
> > > > Krettek
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> aljos...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> I like it a lot!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> I think it makes sense to clean this up
> > > > despite
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > planned
> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> fault-tolerance mechanisms. In the
> > future,
> > > > > users
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > decide
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> which
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> mechanism to use and I can imagine
> that a
> > > lot
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> using
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> the current mechanism for quite a while
> > to
> > > > > come.
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > happy
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> yield
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> to Stephan's opinion here, he knows
> more
> > > > about
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > progress
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> work.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> The one nitpick I have is about naming:
> > > will
> > > > > > users
> > > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> OnHeapStateBackend? I mean, do they
> know
> > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > on-heap/off-heap
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> memory is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> and the tradeoffs? An alternative could
> > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > HashMapStateBackend,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> that's essentially what it is. I
> wouldn't
> > > > block
> > > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> this,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> though.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Aljoscha
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On 09.09.20 10:05, Konstantin Knauf
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the initiative. Big +1.
> Would
> > > be
> > > > > > > > interested
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> proposed interfaces still make sense
> in
> > > the
> > > > > face
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> fault-tolerance
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> work that is planned. Stephan/Piotr
> will
> > > > know.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 7:05 PM Seth
> > > Wiesman
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> sjwies...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Devs,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose an update to how
> > > state
> > > > > > > backends
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> checkpoint
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> are configured to help users better
> > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > Flink.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Apache Flink's durability story is a
> > > > mystery
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > users.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> One
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> most
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> common recurring questions from users
> > > comes
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> relationship between state, state
> > > backends,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > snapshots.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> Some
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> of this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> confusion can be abated with learning
> > > > > material
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> question
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is so
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> pervasive that we believe Flink’s
> user
> > > APIs
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> communicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> what different components are
> > responsible
> > > > > for.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-142%3A+Disentangle+StateBackends+from+Checkpointing
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I look forward to a healthy
> discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Seth
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
