Hi Lijie, wouldn't the REST API-idiomatic way for an update/replace be a PUT on the resource?
PUT: http://{jm_rest_address:port}/blocklist/taskmanagers/{id} Best, Konstantin Am Fr., 13. Mai 2022 um 11:01 Uhr schrieb Lijie Wang < wangdachui9...@gmail.com>: > Hi everyone, > > I've had an offline discussion with Becket Qin and Zhu Zhu, and made the > following changes on REST API: > 1. To avoid ambiguity, *timeout* and *endTimestamp* can only choose one. If > both are specified, will return error. > 2. If the specified item is already there, the *ADD* operation has two > behaviors: *return error*(default value) or *merge/update*, and we add a > flag to the request body to control it. You can find more details "Public > Interface" section. > > If there is no more feedback, we will start the vote thread next week. > > Best, > Lijie > > Lijie Wang <wangdachui9...@gmail.com> 于2022年5月10日周二 17:14写道： > > > Hi Becket Qin, > > > > Thanks for your suggestions. I have moved the description of > > configurations, metrics and REST API into "Public Interface" section, and > > made a few updates according to your suggestion. And in this FLIP, there > > no public java Interfaces or pluggables that users need to implement by > > themselves. > > > > Answers for you questions: > > 1. Yes, there 2 block actions: MARK_BLOCKED and. > > MARK_BLOCKED_AND_EVACUATE_TASKS (has renamed). Currently, block items can > > only be added through the REST API, so these 2 action are mentioned in > the > > REST API part (The REST API part has beed moved to public interface now). > > 2. I agree with you. I have changed the "Cause" field to String, and > allow > > users to specify it via REST API. > > 3. Yes, it is useful to allow different timeouts. As mentioned above, we > > will introduce 2 fields : *timeout* and *endTimestamp* into the ADD REST > > API to specify when to remove the blocked item. These 2 fields are > > optional, if neither is specified, it means that the blocked item is > > permanent and will not be removed. If both are specified, the minimum of > > *currentTimestamp+tiemout *and* endTimestamp* will be used as the time to > > remove the blocked item. To keep the configurations more minimal, we have > > removed the *cluster.resource-blocklist.item.timeout* configuration > > option. > > 4. Yes, the block item will be overridden if the specified item already > > exists. The ADD operation is *ADD or UPDATE*. > > 5. Yes. On JM/RM side, all the blocklist information is maintained in > > JMBlocklistHandler/RMBlocklistHandler. The blocklist handler(or > abstracted > > to other interfaces) will be propagated to different components. > > > > Best, > > Lijie > > > > Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> 于2022年5月10日周二 11:26写道： > > > >> Hi Lijie, > >> > >> Thanks for updating the FLIP. It looks like the public interface section > >> did not fully reflect all the user sensible behavior and API. Can you > put > >> everything that users may be aware of there? That would include the REST > >> API, metrics, configurations, public java Interfaces or pluggables that > >> users may see or implement by themselves, as well as a brief summary of > >> the > >> behavior of the public API. > >> > >> Besides that, I have a few questions: > >> > >> 1. According to the conversation in the discussion thread, it looks like > >> the BlockAction will have "MARK_BLOCKLISTED" and > >> "MARK_BLOCKLISTED_AND_EVACUATE_TASKS". Is that the case? If so, can you > >> add > >> that to the public interface as well? > >> > >> 2. At this point, the "Cause" field in the BlockingItem is a Throwable > and > >> is not reflected in the REST API. Should that be included in the query > >> response? And should we change that field to be a String so users may > >> specify the cause via the REST API when they block some nodes / TMs? > >> > >> 3. Would it be useful to allow users to have different timeouts for > >> different blocked items? So while there is a default timeout, users can > >> also override it via the REST API when they block an entity. > >> > >> 4. Regarding the ADD operation, if the specified item is already there, > >> will the block item be overridden? For example, if the user wants to > >> extend > >> the timeout of a blocked item, can they just issue an ADD command > again? > >> > >> 5. I am not quite familiar with the details of this, but is there a > source > >> of truth for the blocked list? I think it might be good to have a single > >> source of truth for the blocked list and just propagate that list to > >> different components to take the action of actually blocking the > resource. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > >> > >> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 5:54 PM Lijie Wang <wangdachui9...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi everyone, > >> > > >> > Based on the discussion in the mailing list, I updated the FLIP doc, > the > >> > changes include: > >> > 1. Changed the description of the motivation section to more clearly > >> > describe the problem this FLIP is trying to solve. > >> > 2. Only *Manually* is supported. > >> > 3. Adopted some suggestions, such as *endTimestamp*. > >> > > >> > Best, > >> > Lijie > >> > > >> > > >> > Roman Boyko <ro.v.bo...@gmail.com> 于2022年5月7日周六 19:25写道： > >> > > >> > > Hi Lijie! > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > *a) “Probably storing inside Zookeeper/Configmap might be > >> helpfulhere.” > >> > > Can you explain it in detail? I don't fully understand that. In > >> > myopinion, > >> > > non-active and active are the same, and no special treatment > >> isrequired.* > >> > > > >> > > Sorry this was a misunderstanding from my side. I thought we were > >> talking > >> > > about the HA mode (but not about Active and Standalone > >> ResourceManager). > >> > > And the original question was - how to handle the blacklisted nodes > >> list > >> > at > >> > > the moment of leader change? Should we simply forget about them or > >> try to > >> > > pre-save that list on the remote storage? > >> > > > >> > > On Sat, 7 May 2022 at 10:51, Yang Wang <danrtsey...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Thanks Lijie and ZhuZhu for the explanation. > >> > > > > >> > > > I just overlooked the "MARK_BLOCKLISTED". For tasks level, it is > >> indeed > >> > > > some functionalities the external tools(e.g. kubectl taint) could > >> not > >> > > > support. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Best, > >> > > > Yang > >> > > > > >> > > > Lijie Wang <wangdachui9...@gmail.com> 于2022年5月6日周五 22:18写道： > >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for your feedback, Jiangang and Martijn. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > @Jiangang > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > For auto-detecting, I wonder how to make the strategy and > mark a > >> > node > >> > > > > blocked? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > In fact, we currently plan to not support auto-detection in this > >> > FLIP. > >> > > > The > >> > > > > part about auto-detection may be continued in a separate FLIP in > >> the > >> > > > > future. Some guys have the same concerns as you, and the > >> correctness > >> > > and > >> > > > > necessity of auto-detection may require further discussion in > the > >> > > future. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > In session mode, multi jobs can fail on the same bad node and > >> the > >> > > node > >> > > > > should be marked blocked. > >> > > > > By design, the blocklist information will be shared among all > jobs > >> > in a > >> > > > > cluster/session. The JM will sync blocklist information with RM. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > @Martijn > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I agree with Yang Wang on this. > >> > > > > As Zhu Zhu and I mentioned above, we think the > >> MARK_BLOCKLISTED(Just > >> > > > limits > >> > > > > the load of the node and does not kill all the processes on it) > >> is > >> > > also > >> > > > > important, and we think that external systems (*yarn rmadmin or > >> > kubectl > >> > > > > taint*) cannot support it. So we think it makes sense even only > >> > > > *manually*. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I also agree with Chesnay that magical mechanisms are indeed > >> super > >> > > hard > >> > > > > to get right. > >> > > > > Yes, as you see, Jiangang(and a few others) have the same > concern. > >> > > > > However, we currently plan to not support auto-detection in this > >> > FLIP, > >> > > > and > >> > > > > only *manually*. In addition, I'd like to say that the FLIP > >> provides > >> > a > >> > > > > mechanism to support MARK_BLOCKLISTED and > >> > > > > MARK_BLOCKLISTED_AND_EVACUATE_TASKS, > >> > > > > the auto-detection may be done by external systems. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Best, > >> > > > > Lijie > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Martijn Visser <mart...@ververica.com> 于2022年5月6日周五 19:04写道： > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > If we only support to block nodes manually, then I could not > >> see > >> > > > > > the obvious advantages compared with current SRE's > approach(via > >> > *yarn > >> > > > > > rmadmin or kubectl taint*). > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I agree with Yang Wang on this. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > To me this sounds yet again like one of those magical > >> mechanisms > >> > > > that > >> > > > > > will rarely work just right. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I also agree with Chesnay that magical mechanisms are indeed > >> super > >> > > hard > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > get right. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards, > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Martijn > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, 6 May 2022 at 12:03, Jiangang Liu < > >> > liujiangangp...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks for the valuable design. The auto-detecting can > decrease > >> > > great > >> > > > > work > >> > > > > >> for us. We have implemented the similar feature in our inner > >> flink > >> > > > > >> version. > >> > > > > >> Below is something that I care about: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> 1. For auto-detecting, I wonder how to make the strategy > and > >> > > mark a > >> > > > > >> node > >> > > > > >> blocked? Sometimes the blocked node is hard to be > detected, > >> for > >> > > > > >> example, > >> > > > > >> the upper node or the down node will be blocked when > network > >> > > > > >> unreachable. > >> > > > > >> 2. I see that the strategy is made in JobMaster side. How > >> about > >> > > > > >> implementing the similar logic in resource manager? In > >> session > >> > > > mode, > >> > > > > >> multi > >> > > > > >> jobs can fail on the same bad node and the node should be > >> > marked > >> > > > > >> blocked. > >> > > > > >> If the job makes the strategy, the node may be not marked > >> > blocked > >> > > > if > >> > > > > >> the > >> > > > > >> fail times don't exceed the threshold. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com> 于2022年5月5日周四 23:35写道： > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thank you for all your feedback! > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > Besides the answers from Lijie, I'd like to share some of > my > >> > > > thoughts: > >> > > > > >> > 1. Whether to enable automatical blocklist > >> > > > > >> > Generally speaking, it is not a goal of FLIP-224. > >> > > > > >> > The automatical way should be something built upon the > >> blocklist > >> > > > > >> > mechanism and well decoupled. It was designed to be a > >> > configurable > >> > > > > >> > blocklist strategy, but I think we can further decouple it > by > >> > > > > >> > introducing a abnormal node detector, as Becket suggested, > >> which > >> > > > just > >> > > > > >> > uses the blocklist mechanism once bad nodes are detected. > >> > However, > >> > > > it > >> > > > > >> > should be a separate FLIP with further dev discussions and > >> > > feedback > >> > > > > >> > from users. I also agree with Becket that different users > >> have > >> > > > > different > >> > > > > >> > requirements, and we should listen to them. > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > 2. Is it enough to just take away abnormal nodes externally > >> > > > > >> > My answer is no. As Lijie has mentioned, we need a way to > >> avoid > >> > > > > >> > deploying tasks to temporary hot nodes. In this case, users > >> may > >> > > just > >> > > > > >> > want to limit the load of the node and do not want to kill > >> all > >> > the > >> > > > > >> > processes on it. Another case is the speculative > execution[1] > >> > > which > >> > > > > >> > may also leverage this feature to avoid starting mirror > >> tasks on > >> > > > slow > >> > > > > >> > nodes. > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks, > >> > > > > >> > Zhu > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > [1] > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-168%3A+Speculative+execution+for+Batch+Job > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > Lijie Wang <wangdachui9...@gmail.com> 于2022年5月5日周四 > 15:56写道： > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Hi everyone, > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks for your feedback. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > There's one detail that I'd like to re-emphasize here > >> because > >> > it > >> > > > can > >> > > > > >> > affect the value and design of the blocklist mechanism > >> (perhaps > >> > I > >> > > > > should > >> > > > > >> > highlight it in the FLIP). We propose two actions in FLIP: > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > 1) MARK_BLOCKLISTED: Just mark the task manager or node > as > >> > > > blocked. > >> > > > > >> > Future slots should not be allocated from the blocked task > >> > manager > >> > > > or > >> > > > > >> node. > >> > > > > >> > But slots that are already allocated will not be affected. > A > >> > > typical > >> > > > > >> > application scenario is to mitigate machine hotspots. In > this > >> > > case, > >> > > > we > >> > > > > >> hope > >> > > > > >> > that subsequent resource allocations will not be on the hot > >> > > machine, > >> > > > > but > >> > > > > >> > tasks currently running on it should not be affected. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > 2) MARK_BLOCKLISTED_AND_EVACUATE_TASKS: Mark the task > >> manager > >> > or > >> > > > > node > >> > > > > >> as > >> > > > > >> > blocked, and evacuate all tasks on it. Evacuated tasks will > >> be > >> > > > > >> restarted on > >> > > > > >> > non-blocked task managers. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > For the above 2 actions, the former may more highlight > the > >> > > meaning > >> > > > > of > >> > > > > >> > this FLIP, because the external system cannot do that. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Regarding *Manually* and *Automatically*, I basically > agree > >> > with > >> > > > > >> @Becket > >> > > > > >> > Qin: different users have different answers. Not all users’ > >> > > > deployment > >> > > > > >> > environments have a special external system that can > perform > >> the > >> > > > > anomaly > >> > > > > >> > detection. In addition, adding pluggable/optional > >> auto-detection > >> > > > > doesn't > >> > > > > >> > require much extra work on top of manual specification. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > I will answer your other questions one by one. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > @Yangze > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > a) I think you are right, we do not need to expose the > >> > > > > >> > `cluster.resource-blocklist.item.timeout-check-interval` to > >> > users. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > b) We can abstract the `notifyException` to a separate > >> > interface > >> > > > > >> (maybe > >> > > > > >> > BlocklistExceptionListener), and the > >> > > ResourceManagerBlocklistHandler > >> > > > > can > >> > > > > >> > implement it in the future. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > @Martijn > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > a) I also think the manual blocking should be done by > >> cluster > >> > > > > >> operators. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > b) I think manual blocking makes sense, because according > >> to > >> > my > >> > > > > >> > experience, users are often the first to perceive the > machine > >> > > > problems > >> > > > > >> > (because of job failover or delay), and they will contact > >> > cluster > >> > > > > >> operators > >> > > > > >> > to solve it, or even tell the cluster operators which > >> machine is > >> > > > > >> > problematic. From this point of view, I think the people > who > >> > > really > >> > > > > need > >> > > > > >> > the manual blocking are the users, and it’s just performed > by > >> > the > >> > > > > >> cluster > >> > > > > >> > operator, so I think the manual blocking makes sense. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > @Chesnay > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > We need to touch the logic of JM/SlotPool, because for > >> > > > > >> MARK_BLOCKLISTED > >> > > > > >> > , we need to know whether the slot is blocklisted when the > >> task > >> > is > >> > > > > >> > FINISHED/CANCELLED/FAILED. If so, SlotPool should release > >> the > >> > > slot > >> > > > > >> > directly to avoid assigning other tasks (of this job) on > it. > >> If > >> > we > >> > > > > only > >> > > > > >> > maintain the blocklist information on the RM, JM needs to > >> > retrieve > >> > > > it > >> > > > > by > >> > > > > >> > RPC. I think the performance overhead of that is relatively > >> > large, > >> > > > so > >> > > > > I > >> > > > > >> > think it's worth maintaining the blocklist information on > >> the JM > >> > > > side > >> > > > > >> and > >> > > > > >> > syncing them. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > @Роман > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > a) “Probably storing inside Zookeeper/Configmap might > >> be > >> > > > helpful > >> > > > > >> > here.” Can you explain it in detail? I don't fully > >> understand > >> > > that. > >> > > > > In > >> > > > > >> my > >> > > > > >> > opinion, non-active and active are the same, and no special > >> > > > treatment > >> > > > > is > >> > > > > >> > required. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > b) I agree with you, the `endTimestamp` makes sense, I > will > >> > add > >> > > it > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > >> > FLIP. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > @Yang > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > As mentioned above, AFAK, the external system cannot > >> support > >> > the > >> > > > > >> > MARK_BLOCKLISTED action. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Looking forward to your further feedback. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Best, > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Lijie > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Yang Wang <danrtsey...@gmail.com> 于2022年5月3日周二 21:09写道： > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Thanks Lijie and Zhu for creating the proposal. > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> I want to share some thoughts about Flink cluster > >> operations. > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> In the production environment, the SRE(aka Site > >> Reliability > >> > > > > Engineer) > >> > > > > >> > >> already has many tools to detect the unstable nodes, > which > >> > > could > >> > > > > take > >> > > > > >> > the > >> > > > > >> > >> system logs/metrics into consideration. > >> > > > > >> > >> Then they use graceful-decomission in YARN and taint in > >> K8s > >> > to > >> > > > > >> prevent > >> > > > > >> > new > >> > > > > >> > >> allocations on these unstable nodes. > >> > > > > >> > >> At last, they will evict all the containers and pods > >> running > >> > on > >> > > > > these > >> > > > > >> > nodes. > >> > > > > >> > >> This mechanism also works for planned maintenance. So I > am > >> > > afraid > >> > > > > >> this > >> > > > > >> > is > >> > > > > >> > >> not the typical use case for FLIP-224. > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> If we only support to block nodes manually, then I could > >> not > >> > > see > >> > > > > >> > >> the obvious advantages compared with current SRE's > >> > approach(via > >> > > > > *yarn > >> > > > > >> > >> rmadmin or kubectl taint*). > >> > > > > >> > >> At least, we need to have a pluggable component which > >> could > >> > > > expose > >> > > > > >> the > >> > > > > >> > >> potential unstable nodes automatically and block them if > >> > > enabled > >> > > > > >> > explicitly. > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Best, > >> > > > > >> > >> Yang > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> 于2022年5月2日周一 16:36写道： > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks for the proposal, Lijie. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > This is an interesting feature and discussion, and > >> somewhat > >> > > > > related > >> > > > > >> > to the > >> > > > > >> > >> > design principle about how people should operate > Flink. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > I think there are three things involved in this FLIP. > >> > > > > >> > >> > a) Detect and report the unstable node. > >> > > > > >> > >> > b) Collect the information of the unstable node > and > >> > > form a > >> > > > > >> > blocklist. > >> > > > > >> > >> > c) Take the action to block nodes. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > My two cents: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > 1. It looks like people all agree that Flink should > have > >> > c). > >> > > It > >> > > > > is > >> > > > > >> > not only > >> > > > > >> > >> > useful for cases of node failures, but also handy for > >> some > >> > > > > planned > >> > > > > >> > >> > maintenance. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > 2. People have different opinions on b), i.e. who > >> should be > >> > > the > >> > > > > >> brain > >> > > > > >> > to > >> > > > > >> > >> > make the decision to block a node. I think this > largely > >> > > depends > >> > > > > on > >> > > > > >> > who we > >> > > > > >> > >> > talk to. Different users would probably give different > >> > > answers. > >> > > > > For > >> > > > > >> > people > >> > > > > >> > >> > who do have a centralized node health management > >> service, > >> > let > >> > > > > Flink > >> > > > > >> > do just > >> > > > > >> > >> > do a) and c) would be preferred. So essentially Flink > >> would > >> > > be > >> > > > > one > >> > > > > >> of > >> > > > > >> > the > >> > > > > >> > >> > sources that may detect unstable nodes, report it to > >> that > >> > > > > service, > >> > > > > >> > and then > >> > > > > >> > >> > take the command from that service to block the > >> problematic > >> > > > > nodes. > >> > > > > >> On > >> > > > > >> > the > >> > > > > >> > >> > other hand, for users who do not have such a service, > >> > simply > >> > > > > >> letting > >> > > > > >> > Flink > >> > > > > >> > >> > be clever by itself to block the suspicious nodes > might > >> be > >> > > > > desired > >> > > > > >> to > >> > > > > >> > >> > ensure the jobs are running smoothly. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > So that indicates a) and b) here should be pluggable / > >> > > > optional. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > In light of this, maybe it would make sense to have > >> > something > >> > > > > >> > pluggable > >> > > > > >> > >> > like a UnstableNodeReporter which exposes unstable > nodes > >> > > > > actively. > >> > > > > >> (A > >> > > > > >> > more > >> > > > > >> > >> > general interface should be JobInfoReporter<T> which > >> can be > >> > > > used > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > >> > report > >> > > > > >> > >> > any information of type <T>. But I'll just keep the > >> scope > >> > > > > relevant > >> > > > > >> to > >> > > > > >> > this > >> > > > > >> > >> > FLIP here). Personally speaking, I think it is OK to > >> have a > >> > > > > default > >> > > > > >> > >> > implementation of a reporter which just tells Flink to > >> take > >> > > > > action > >> > > > > >> to > >> > > > > >> > block > >> > > > > >> > >> > problematic nodes and also unblocks them after > timeout. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > Thanks, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 3:27 PM Роман Бойко < > >> > > > ro.v.bo...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks for good initiative, Lijie and Zhu! > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > If it's possible I'd like to participate in > >> development. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I agree with 3rd point of Konstantin's reply - we > >> should > >> > > > > consider > >> > > > > >> > to move > >> > > > > >> > >> > > somehow the information of blocklisted nodes/TMs > from > >> > > active > >> > > > > >> > >> > > ResourceManager to non-active ones. Probably storing > >> > inside > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Zookeeper/Configmap might be helpful here. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > And I agree with Martijn that a lot of organizations > >> > don't > >> > > > want > >> > > > > >> to > >> > > > > >> > expose > >> > > > > >> > >> > > such API for a cluster user group. But I think it's > >> > > necessary > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > >> > have the > >> > > > > >> > >> > > mechanism for unblocking the nodes/TMs anyway for > >> > avoiding > >> > > > > >> incorrect > >> > > > > >> > >> > > automatic behaviour. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > And another one small suggestion - I think it would > be > >> > > better > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > >> > extend > >> > > > > >> > >> > the > >> > > > > >> > >> > > *BlocklistedItem* class with the *endTimestamp* > field > >> and > >> > > > fill > >> > > > > it > >> > > > > >> > at the > >> > > > > >> > >> > > item creation. This simple addition will allow to: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > - > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Provide the ability to users to setup the exact > >> time > >> > of > >> > > > > >> > blocklist end > >> > > > > >> > >> > > through RestAPI > >> > > > > >> > >> > > - > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Not being tied to a single value of > >> > > > > >> > >> > > *cluster.resource-blacklist.item.timeout* > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Mon, 2 May 2022 at 14:17, Chesnay Schepler < > >> > > > > >> ches...@apache.org> > >> > > > > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > I do share the concern between blurring the lines > a > >> > bit. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > That said, I'd prefer to not have any > auto-detection > >> > and > >> > > > only > >> > > > > >> > have an > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > opt-in mechanism > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > to manually block processes/nodes. To me this > sounds > >> > yet > >> > > > > again > >> > > > > >> > like one > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > of those > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > magical mechanisms that will rarely work just > right. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > An external system can leverage way more > information > >> > > after > >> > > > > all. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Moreover, I'm quite concerned about the complexity > >> of > >> > > this > >> > > > > >> > proposal. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Tracking on both the RM/JM side; syncing between > >> > > > components; > >> > > > > >> > >> > adjustments > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > to the > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > slot and resource protocol. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > In a way it seems overly complicated. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > If we look at it purely from an active resource > >> > > management > >> > > > > >> > perspective, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > then there > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > isn't really a need to touch the slot protocol at > >> all > >> > (or > >> > > > in > >> > > > > >> fact > >> > > > > >> > to > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > anything in the JobMaster), > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > because there isn't any point in keeping around > >> blocked > >> > > TMs > >> > > > > in > >> > > > > >> the > >> > > > > >> > >> > first > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > place. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > They'd just be idling, potentially shutting down > >> after > >> > a > >> > > > > while > >> > > > > >> by > >> > > > > >> > the > >> > > > > >> > >> > RM > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > because of > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > it (unless we _also_ touch that logic). > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Here the blocking of a process (be it by blocking > >> the > >> > > > process > >> > > > > >> or > >> > > > > >> > node) > >> > > > > >> > >> > is > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > equivalent with shutting down the blocked > >> process(es). > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Once the block is lifted we can just spin it back > >> up. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > And I do wonder whether we couldn't apply the same > >> line > >> > > of > >> > > > > >> > thinking to > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > standalone resource management. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Here being able to stop/restart a process/node > >> manually > >> > > > > should > >> > > > > >> be > >> > > > > >> > a > >> > > > > >> > >> > core > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > requirement for a Flink deployment anyway. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On 02/05/2022 08:49, Martijn Visser wrote: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Hi everyone, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks for creating this FLIP. I can understand > >> the > >> > > > problem > >> > > > > >> and > >> > > > > >> > I see > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > value > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > in the automatic detection and blocklisting. I > do > >> > have > >> > > > some > >> > > > > >> > concerns > >> > > > > >> > >> > > with > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > the ability to manually specify to be blocked > >> > > resources. > >> > > > I > >> > > > > >> have > >> > > > > >> > two > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > concerns; > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > * Most organizations explicitly have a > separation > >> of > >> > > > > >> concerns, > >> > > > > >> > >> > meaning > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > that > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > there's a group who's responsible for managing a > >> > > cluster > >> > > > > and > >> > > > > >> > there's > >> > > > > >> > >> > a > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > user > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > group who uses that cluster. With the > >> introduction of > >> > > > this > >> > > > > >> > mechanism, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > the > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > latter group now can influence the > responsibility > >> of > >> > > the > >> > > > > >> first > >> > > > > >> > group. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > So > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > it > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > can be possible that someone from the user group > >> > blocks > >> > > > > >> > something, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > which > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > causes an outage (which could result in paging > >> > > mechanism > >> > > > > >> > triggering > >> > > > > >> > >> > > etc) > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > which impacts the first group. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > * How big is the group of people who can go > >> through > >> > the > >> > > > > >> process > >> > > > > >> > of > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > manually > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > identifying a node that isn't behaving as it > >> should > >> > > be? I > >> > > > > do > >> > > > > >> > think > >> > > > > >> > >> > this > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > group is relatively limited. Does it then make > >> sense > >> > to > >> > > > > >> > introduce > >> > > > > >> > >> > such > >> > > > > >> > >> > > a > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > feature, which would only be used by a really > >> small > >> > > user > >> > > > > >> group > >> > > > > >> > of > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Flink? > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > We > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > still have to maintain, test and support such a > >> > > feature. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > I'm +1 for the autodetection features, but I'm > >> > leaning > >> > > > > >> towards > >> > > > > >> > not > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > exposing > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > this to the user group but having this available > >> > > strictly > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > >> > cluster > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > operators. They could then also set up their > >> > > > > >> > paging/metrics/logging > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > system > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > to take this into account. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Best regards, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Martijn Visser > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > https://twitter.com/MartijnVisser82 > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > https://github.com/MartijnVisser > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 09:39, Yangze Guo < > >> > > > > karma...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> Thanks for driving this, Zhu and Lijie. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> +1 for the overall proposal. Just share some > >> cents > >> > > here: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> - Why do we need to expose > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > cluster.resource-blacklist.item.timeout-check-interval > >> > > > to > >> > > > > >> the > >> > > > > >> > user? > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> I think the semantics of > >> > > > > >> > `cluster.resource-blacklist.item.timeout` > >> > > > > >> > >> > is > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> sufficient for the user. How to guarantee the > >> > timeout > >> > > > > >> > mechanism is > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> Flink's internal implementation. I think it > will > >> be > >> > > very > >> > > > > >> > confusing > >> > > > > >> > >> > and > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> we do not need to expose it to users. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> - ResourceManager can notify the exception of a > >> task > >> > > > > >> manager to > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> `BlacklistHandler` as well. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> For example, the slot allocation might fail in > >> case > >> > > the > >> > > > > >> target > >> > > > > >> > task > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> manager is busy or has a network jitter. I > don't > >> > mean > >> > > we > >> > > > > >> need > >> > > > > >> > to > >> > > > > >> > >> > cover > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> this case in this version, but we can also > open a > >> > > > > >> > `notifyException` > >> > > > > >> > >> > in > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> `ResourceManagerBlacklistHandler`. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> - Before we sync the blocklist to > >> ResourceManager, > >> > > will > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > slot of > >> > > > > >> > >> > a > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> blocked task manager continues to be released > and > >> > > > > allocated? > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> Best, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> Yangze Guo > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 3:11 PM Lijie Wang < > >> > > > > >> > >> > wangdachui9...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> Hi Konstantin, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> Thanks for your feedback. I will response > your 4 > >> > > > remarks: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> 1) Thanks for reminding me of the > controversy. I > >> > > think > >> > > > > >> > “BlockList” > >> > > > > >> > >> > is > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> good > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> enough, and I will change it in FLIP. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> 2) Your suggestion for the REST API is a good > >> idea. > >> > > > Based > >> > > > > >> on > >> > > > > >> > the > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > above, I > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> would change REST API as following: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> POST/GET <host>/blocklist/nodes > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> POST/GET <host>/blocklist/taskmanagers > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> DELETE <host>/blocklist/node/<identifier> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> DELETE > <host>/blocklist/taskmanager/<identifier> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> 3) If a node is blocking/blocklisted, it means > >> that > >> > > all > >> > > > > >> task > >> > > > > >> > >> > managers > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > on > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> this node are blocklisted. All slots on these > >> TMs > >> > are > >> > > > not > >> > > > > >> > >> > available. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > This > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> is actually a bit like TM losts, but these TMs > >> are > >> > > not > >> > > > > >> really > >> > > > > >> > lost, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > they > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> are in an unavailable status, and they are > still > >> > > > > registered > >> > > > > >> > in this > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > flink > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> cluster. They will be available again once the > >> > > > > >> corresponding > >> > > > > >> > >> > > blocklist > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> item > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> is removed. This behavior is the same in > >> > > > > active/non-active > >> > > > > >> > >> > clusters. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> However in the active clusters, these TMs may > be > >> > > > released > >> > > > > >> due > >> > > > > >> > to > >> > > > > >> > >> > idle > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> timeouts. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> 4) For the item timeout, I prefer to keep it. > >> The > >> > > > reasons > >> > > > > >> are > >> > > > > >> > as > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> following: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> a) The timeout will not affect users adding or > >> > > removing > >> > > > > >> items > >> > > > > >> > via > >> > > > > >> > >> > > REST > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> API, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> and users can disable it by configuring it to > >> > > > > >> Long.MAX_VALUE . > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> b) Some node problems can recover after a > >> period of > >> > > > time > >> > > > > >> > (such as > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > machine > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> hotspots), in which case users may prefer that > >> > Flink > >> > > > can > >> > > > > do > >> > > > > >> > this > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> automatically instead of requiring the user to > >> do > >> > it > >> > > > > >> manually. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> Best, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> Lijie > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> Konstantin Knauf <kna...@apache.org> > >> 于2022年4月27日周三 > >> > > > > >> 19:23写道： > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> Hi Lijie, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> I think, this makes sense and +1 to only > >> support > >> > > > > manually > >> > > > > >> > blocking > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> taskmanagers and nodes. Maybe the different > >> > > strategies > >> > > > > can > >> > > > > >> > also be > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> maintained outside of Apache Flink. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> A few remarks: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> 1) Can we use another term than "bla.cklist" > >> due > >> > to > >> > > > the > >> > > > > >> > >> > controversy > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> around > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> the term? [1] There was also a Jira Ticket > >> about > >> > > this > >> > > > > >> topic a > >> > > > > >> > >> > while > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> back > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> and there was generally a consensus to avoid > >> the > >> > > term > >> > > > > >> > blacklist & > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> whitelist > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> [2]? We could use "blocklist" "denylist" or > >> > > > > "quarantined" > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> 2) For the REST API, I'd prefer a slightly > >> > different > >> > > > > >> design > >> > > > > >> > as > >> > > > > >> > >> > verbs > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> like > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> add/remove often considered an anti-pattern > for > >> > REST > >> > > > > APIs. > >> > > > > >> > POST > >> > > > > >> > >> > on a > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> list > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> item is generally the standard to add items. > >> > DELETE > >> > > on > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > >> > > individual > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> resource is standard to remove an item. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> POST <host>/quarantine/items > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> DELETE > <host>/quarantine/items/<itemidentifier> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> We could also consider to separate > taskmanagers > >> > and > >> > > > > nodes > >> > > > > >> in > >> > > > > >> > the > >> > > > > >> > >> > > REST > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> API > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> (and internal data structures). Any opinion > on > >> > this? > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> POST/GET <host>/quarantine/nodes > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> POST/GET <host>/quarantine/taskmanager > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> DELETE <host>/quarantine/nodes/<identifier> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> DELETE > >> <host>/quarantine/taskmanager/<identifier> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> 3) How would blocking nodes behave with > >> non-active > >> > > > > >> resource > >> > > > > >> > >> > > managers, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> i.e. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> standalone or reactive mode? > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> 4) To keep the implementation even more > >> minimal, > >> > do > >> > > we > >> > > > > >> need > >> > > > > >> > the > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > timeout > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> behavior? If items are added/removed manually > >> we > >> > > could > >> > > > > >> > delegate > >> > > > > >> > >> > this > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> to the > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> user easily. In my opinion the timeout > behavior > >> > > would > >> > > > > >> better > >> > > > > >> > fit > >> > > > > >> > >> > > into > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> specific strategies at a later point. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> Looking forward to your thoughts. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> Cheers and thank you, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> Konstantin > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> [1] > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist_(computing)#Controversy_over_use_of_the_term > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> [2] > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-18209 > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> Am Mi., 27. Apr. 2022 um 04:04 Uhr schrieb > >> Lijie > >> > > Wang > >> > > > < > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> wangdachui9...@gmail.com>: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> Hi all, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> Flink job failures may happen due to cluster > >> node > >> > > > > issues > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> (insufficient > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> disk > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> space, bad hardware, network abnormalities). > >> > Flink > >> > > > will > >> > > > > >> > take care > >> > > > > >> > >> > > of > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> the > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> failures and redeploy the tasks. However, > due > >> to > >> > > data > >> > > > > >> > locality > >> > > > > >> > >> > and > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> limited > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> resources, the new tasks are very likely to > be > >> > > > > redeployed > >> > > > > >> > to the > >> > > > > >> > >> > > same > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> nodes, which will result in continuous task > >> > > > > abnormalities > >> > > > > >> > and > >> > > > > >> > >> > > affect > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> job > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> progress. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> Currently, Flink users need to manually > >> identify > >> > > the > >> > > > > >> > problematic > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> node and > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> take it offline to solve this problem. But > >> this > >> > > > > approach > >> > > > > >> has > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> following > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> disadvantages: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> 1. Taking a node offline can be a heavy > >> process. > >> > > > Users > >> > > > > >> may > >> > > > > >> > need > >> > > > > >> > >> > to > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> contact > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> cluster administors to do this. The > operation > >> can > >> > > > even > >> > > > > be > >> > > > > >> > >> > dangerous > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> and > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> not > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> allowed during some important business > events. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> 2. Identifying and solving this kind of > >> problems > >> > > > > manually > >> > > > > >> > would > >> > > > > >> > >> > be > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> slow > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> and > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> a waste of human resources. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> To solve this problem, Zhu Zhu and I propose > >> to > >> > > > > >> introduce a > >> > > > > >> > >> > > blacklist > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> mechanism for Flink to filter out > problematic > >> > > > > resources. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> You can find more details in FLIP-224[1]. > >> Looking > >> > > > > forward > >> > > > > >> > to your > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>> feedback. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> [1] > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-224%3A+Blacklist+Mechanism > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> Best, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> Lijie > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Best regards, > >> > > Roman Boyko > >> > > e.: ro.v.bo...@gmail.com > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > -- https://twitter.com/snntrable https://github.com/knaufk
