Thank you, Matthias. > - I guess, you don't have to add the entire old section with the screenshots to the Rejected alternatives. The summary paragraph is good enough
Yes, I deleted the redundant screenshots and information and kept the core summary in paragraphs. > - There's a duplicated sentence under "The Web UI and REST interfaces" > > The design of the rescale history UI will follow the style of the checkpoints-related pages. > > But the design of the rescale history REST API will follow the style of the checkpoints-related interfaces. Thanks for your detailed review. You are right, there're typos. Updated and please let me have a try on clarifying it: The original meaning what I want to express is 'But the design of the rescale history REST API will not follow fully the style of the checkpoints-related interfaces.', because we refactored the old interface located in the rejected edition now into three new minor interfaces. Best, Yuepeng Pan Matthias Pohl <[email protected]> 于2026年1月5日周一 15:17写道： > Thank you. Nothing to add from my side aside from the following cosmetic > items: > - I guess, you don't have to add the entire old section with the > screenshots to the Rejected alternatives. The summary paragraph is good > enough > - There's a duplicated sentence under "The Web UI and REST interfaces" > > The design of the rescale history UI will follow the style of the > checkpoints-related pages. > > But the design of the rescale history REST API will follow the style of > the checkpoints-related interfaces. > > Matthias > > On Fri, Jan 2, 2026 at 6:19 PM Yuepeng Pan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, Matthias. > > No worries~ and thank you very much for your comments. > > > > I made some adjustments based on your suggestions. > > > > > - The link to the sketch (section "The Web UI and REST interfaces") > could > > > be removed. We should add any missing screenshots to the FLIP and not > > rely > > > on external resources. > > > > Deleted and all of the UI pages are pasted into the wiki page. > > In the original versions, all relevant pages have already been posted to > > the wiki. > > I have only removed the source file URLs. > > > > > - Maybe, add to the "Rescale Overview UI" section that the goal is to > > have > > > the rescale overview aligned with the checkpoint overview > > > - For the /jobs/:jobid/rescales endpoint, splitting it up into three > > > endpoints /jobs/:jobid/rescales/{summary,history,overview} might be a > > good > > > idea. For /config, we do it like that. But I also see the point of > > keeping > > > it as you proposed because we said we want to be close to what the > > > checkpoint REST endpoint and UI provides. Your call - you can list the > > > option that you didn't go for under "Rejected Alternatives" to give > more > > > context around the goal that we wanted to keep the Rescale UI/REST API > > > close to what is available for checkpoints. > > > > The idea you mentioned makes sense to me. > > And I updated and adapted the corresponding part based on your opinion. > > PTAL~ > > > > > - Under "Rescale Details UI" you added a sentence (below the > screenshot) > > > that feels like it should be fixed: "the items need todo keep same as > > > mentioned Rescale Overview UI" > > > > Deleted. > > > > > - You can add a self-explanatory description for "Compatibility, > > > Deprecation, and Migration Plan" (e.g. No previous work needs to be > > > considered) > > > - Test Plan: REST endpoints will be tested with the RestHandler > > framework. > > > The UI will be tested visually through manual testing, I guess. > > > > Done. > > > > > > I'd appreciate any input. > > > > Best regards, > > Yuepeng Pan > > > > > > Matthias Pohl via dev <[email protected]> 于2026年1月3日周六 00:15写道： > > > >> Looks like I mixed things up when replying to your message and it ended > up > >> in the wrong thread. Apologies for the confusion. See my message below: > >> > >> Happy New Year to you, too. I have nothing major to add here. Just a few > >> minor things: > >> > >> - The link to the sketch (section "The Web UI and REST interfaces") > could > >> be removed. We should add any missing screenshots to the FLIP and not > rely > >> on external resources. > >> - Maybe, add to the "Rescale Overview UI" section that the goal is to > have > >> the rescale overview aligned with the checkpoint overview > >> - For the /jobs/:jobid/rescales endpoint, splitting it up into three > >> endpoints /jobs/:jobid/rescales/{summary,history,overview} might be a > good > >> idea. For /config, we do it like that. But I also see the point of > keeping > >> it as you proposed because we said we want to be close to what the > >> checkpoint REST endpoint and UI provides. Your call - you can list the > >> option that you didn't go for under "Rejected Alternatives" to give more > >> context around the goal that we wanted to keep the Rescale UI/REST API > >> close to what is available for checkpoints. > >> - Under "Rescale Details UI" you added a sentence (below the screenshot) > >> that feels like it should be fixed: "he items need todo keep same as > >> mentioned Rescale Overview UI" > >> - You can add a self-explanatory description for "Compatibility, > >> Deprecation, and Migration Plan" (e.g. No previous work needs to be > >> considered) > >> - Test Plan: REST endpoints will be tested with the RestHandler > framework. > >> The UI will be tested visually through manual testing, I guess. > >> > >> Best, > >> Matthias > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 5:37 PM Yuepeng Pan <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi, Matthias. > >> > Thank you for your review and Happy New Year! > >> > > >> > > >> > a. About JSON schema: > >> > > >> > > You are right. Existing fields shouldn't be modified. Only for new > >> ones, > >> > we > >> > > can make sure to not introduce more inconsistencies. > >> > > >> > > In general, the problem is that the JSON formatting is not specified > >> in > >> > the > >> > > coding guidelines. That's why it comes with no surprise that these > >> > > formatting inconsistencies exist. We would need to start a > discussion > >> on > >> > > updating the Flink coding guidelines first. Only afterwards, we > could > >> fix > >> > > the formatting. > >> > > >> > > Such a change would need to be rolled out as part of a major version > >> > (e.g. > >> > > 3.0) only, though. > >> > > >> > Thanks for your confirmation & ideas. > >> > That sounds good to me! > >> > > >> > I’ve created a new Jira ticket[1] so that community contributors can > >> track > >> > this new, independent piece of work. > >> > > >> > > >> > b. About the durationInMillis attribute > >> > > >> > Thanks for your response. > >> > I removed the durationInMillis from the corresponding json schema of > >> REST > >> > API interfaces and added some required description on the reason about > >> the > >> > deprecated 'durationInMillis'. > >> > > >> > > >> > Any input is appreciated! > >> > > >> > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-38853 > >> > > >> > > >> > Best regards, > >> > Yuepeng Pan > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Matthias Pohl <[email protected]> 于2025年12月31日周三 22:34写道： > >> > > >> > > Thanks for the quick response. I added my responses inline. PTAL > >> > > > >> > > Best, > >> > > Matthias > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, 22 Dec 2025, 01:02 Yuepeng Pan, <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Hi, Matthias, I'm glad to see that email. > >> > > > And thank you very much for your review and comments. > >> > > > > >> > > > To facilitate reading and discussion, > >> > > > I have grouped related questions together as much as possible > >> > > > when organizing my responses to your comments, > >> > > > and I hope this will not cause any inconvenience. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > 1. Reference typo & format. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Adaptive Scheduler will support record and query the rescale > >> history > >> > > > in[2] > >> > > > > Shouldn't it have refer to reference #3, i.e. FLIP-495? > >> > > > > nit: In the wiki, we do not need to add the references but use > >> links > >> > > with > >> > > > > proper link text (e.g. in the motivation paragraph). That should > >> > > improve > >> > > > > readability. > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks for the catching and suggestions. That makes sense to me. > >> > > > I corrected and reformatted the citation errors > >> > > > and reference formats you mentioned throughout the entire > document. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > 2. Schemas: > >> > > > > >> > > > a. schema of the response for /jobs/overview > >> > > > > >> > > > > extended schema of the response for /jobs/overview > >> > > > > >> > > > > The extract of the schema extension is not precise: We should > >> show, > >> > > that > >> > > > > the new fields are added to the item type > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > (urn:jsonschema:org:apache:flink:runtime:messages:webmonitor:JobDetails). > >> > > > > About the field name formatting of "job-type": We still do not > >> have > >> > > this > >> > > > > one included in the code convention. But AFAIS, we usually > follow > >> > > > camelCase > >> > > > > format rather kebab-casing. But especially the Job overview uses > >> both > >> > > > > already. > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks for the comments. > >> > > > That sounds good to me. > >> > > > I have updated the corresponding accompanying changes to the > >> JobDetails > >> > > > class. > >> > > > > >> > > > b. schema of response for /jobs/:jobid/rescales > >> > > > > >> > > > > Schema of response for /jobs/:jobid/rescales > >> > > > > I noticed that also for the other JSON schemas, we jump between > >> > formats > >> > > > > (even introducing snake_casing). Let's unify them and stick to > >> > > camelCase. > >> > > > > WDYT? > >> > > > > >> > > > Nice idea! > >> > > > Considering compatibility and the workload associated with this > >> FLIP, > >> > > > the existing fields are not modified in the current FLIP, > >> > > > only the newly introduced fields are named > >> > > > following the camelCase naming convention. > >> > > > And I updated the lines about schemas that need to change. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Regarding the naming style changes for all fields in schemas that > >> are > >> > > > modified (as opposed to newly introduced) within this FLIP, do we > >> need > >> > a > >> > > > new FLIP to address and unify such work? > >> > > > This way, the new FLIP would focus solely on this type of task. > >> > > > What do you think about it ? > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > You are right. Existing fields shouldn't be modified. Only for new > >> ones, > >> > we > >> > > can make sure to not introduce more inconsistencies. > >> > > > >> > > In general, the problem is that the JSON formatting is not specified > >> in > >> > the > >> > > coding guidelines. That's why it comes with no surprise that these > >> > > formatting inconsistencies exist. We would need to start a > discussion > >> on > >> > > updating the Flink coding guidelines first. Only afterwards, we > could > >> fix > >> > > the formatting. > >> > > > >> > > Such a change would need to be rolled out as part of a major version > >> > (e.g. > >> > > 3.0) only, though. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > c. For "summary.rescaleCounts" > >> > > > > >> > > > > For "summary.rescaleCounts", we might not need to add the > >> "_rescales" > >> > > > > suffix to the record fields since the parent indicates already > >> that > >> > all > >> > > > of > >> > > > > the fields are rescale counts. We, therefore, could use > >> "inProgress", > >> > > > > "ignored", "completed", "failed". > >> > > > > >> > > > Yes, this indeed makes the expression more concise and to the > point. > >> > > > I updated this part. > >> > > > > >> > > > > Do we see value in adding the total > >> > > > > value? That could be easily calculated using the other four > >> metrics. > >> > > > Hence, > >> > > > > I think we can consider it as being redundant and remove it. > >> > > > > >> > > > This is acceptable, as the one of differences lies in > >> > > > whether the total value is calculated on the FE side or on the > >> backend. > >> > > > > >> > > > d. rescalesDurationStats/rescales_duration_stats(the previous > >> edition) > >> > > > > >> > > > > "rescales_duration_stats" > >> > > > > For all the "durationStats"? Can we add the time unit to make > >> things > >> > > > > clearer, e.g. "rescalesDurationStats" becomes > >> > > > > "rescalesDurationStatsInMillis"? ...same applies to the > timestamps > >> > > > > >> > > > Good idea~. > >> > > > I update the description of all attributes about timestamps. > >> > > > Please help take a look! > >> > > > > >> > > > e. > ignoredRescalesDurationStats/ignored_rescales_duration_stats(the > >> > > > previous edition) > >> > > > > >> > > > > "ignored_rescales_duration_stats" > >> > > > > Are the stats useful for rescales which were actually not > >> executed? > >> > > > > >> > > > Answering this question may be a bit difficult for me. > >> > > > In theory, since rescale operations of the Ignored type can occur, > >> > > > it is reasonable to include them in the statistics—at least > >> > > > from the perspective of having a complete set of dimensions. > >> > > > In addition, I'm not certain whether users truly do not care > >> > > > about statistics for this type of data. > >> > > > Therefore, I kept it in the initial design document. > >> > > > If you think it is unnecessary to retain this data, > >> > > > we can exclude Ignored rescale types from the duration statistics. > >> > > > I would appreciate your experience and opinion on this. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Fair enough. > >> > > > >> > > f. the durationInMillis attribute. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > duration > >> > > > > Rescale details already contain the start and end time. Adding > the > >> > > > duration > >> > > > > here shouldn't be necessary. > >> > > > > >> > > > If the frontend page does not involve overly complex display > logic, > >> > > > adding an additional durationInMillis field here should be > >> unnecessary. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Just to clarify: I don't suggest removing the duration information > >> from > >> > the > >> > > web UI. It's only obsolete in the REST API because it can be > >> calculated > >> > on > >> > > the client side. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > 3. UI > >> > > > > >> > > > a. Rescale History UI(related to 'durationInMillis' attribute) > >> > > > > >> > > > > Rescale History UI > >> > > > > The history looks nice. What making the duration of the > inProgress > >> > > > rescales > >> > > > > dynamic, i.e. counting the seconds up from the start time? > Keeping > >> > the > >> > > NA > >> > > > > is also fine if the dynamic approach is too complicated. > >> > > > > >> > > > In my limited reading, > >> > > > this is feasible from an implementation perspective, > >> > > > though it may require some adjustments. > >> > > > If we remove the durationInMillis field from rescale, > >> > > > the frontend would need to perform some additional processing when > >> > > > displaying the data. > >> > > > For example: > >> > > > rescale{terminalState=inProgress, startTimestampInMillis=1, > >> > > > endTimestampInMillis=null, durationInMillis=3} > >> > > > If we keep the durationInMillis field, the frontend would almost > not > >> > need > >> > > > any logic and could simply display the data as is. > >> > > > If we do not keep the durationInMillis field, the frontend would > >> need > >> > to > >> > > do > >> > > > two things when rendering: > >> > > > - Calculate durationInMillis based on startTimestampInMillis and > >> > > > endTimestampInMillis > >> > > > - When displaying records with terminalState = inProgress, show > >> > > > endTimestampInMillis as null > >> > > > > >> > > > Similarly, for handling durationInMillis in schedulerState, > >> > > > I‘m not sure whether such scenarios would arise, > >> > > > although we have not yet considered > >> > > > whether this data should be displayed in the same way as > >> > > > Rescale.durationInMillis. > >> > > > Although the difference is small, > >> > > > it is worth clarifying so that we can better evaluate the > decision. > >> > > > > >> > > > Therefore, please let me know your thoughts on > >> > > > - whether we should keep the durationInMillis field for both > Rescale > >> > and > >> > > > schedulerState in the schema > >> > > > - Show N.A in the duration of InProgress Rescale and remove the > >> > > > durationInMillis in the related sub-json. > >> > > > - Or something reasonable from you. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > As mentioned in 2.f), I would remove the duration and calculate it > >> > > dynamically in the client code. It shouldn't be a too complex > >> operation > >> > and > >> > > allows us to keep the duration dynamic for rescales in progress. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > b. Rescale Overview UI. > >> > > > > >> > > > > Rescale Overview UI > >> > > > > The screenshot shows "Acquired profile" twice for the slot > (based > >> on > >> > > the > >> > > > > details UI, the first one is supposed to be "required"). > >> > > > > >> > > > Sorry for the typo. I corrected it. > >> > > > > >> > > > > Additionally, in > >> > > > > FLIP-495 we agreed on four metrics: previous, sufficient, > desired > >> and > >> > > > > acquired resources (for parallelism and profile). Should we use > >> those > >> > > in > >> > > > > the UI as well? > >> > > > > >> > > > Okay. Updated it in the related UI draft pages. > >> > > > > >> > > > > We might want to add tooltips to the headers as well to > >> > > > > add a description for each of the metrics. > >> > > > > >> > > > > Could we add tooltips to the headers of the rescale overview to > >> > > describe > >> > > > the different IDs? > >> > > > > >> > > > Yes, the suggestion is reasonable. > >> > > > And I added the description of hint messages about some core > header > >> > > > attributes after the corresponding UI draft pages. > >> > > > Looking forward to your opinion. > >> > > > > >> > > > 4. The new added items by me: > >> > > > I have added notes after some sections of the core UI pages > >> regarding > >> > > > limiting the displayed length of UUID-type identifiers and issues > >> > related > >> > > > to task names. > >> > > > > >> > > > I'd greatly appreciate any suggestions you may have. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Best regards, > >> > > > Yuepeng Pan > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Matthias Pohl <[email protected]> 于2025年12月18日周四 18:08写道： > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi Yuepeng, > >> > > > > I finally found some time to look into that FLIP again. Sorry > for > >> the > >> > > > > delay. Thanks for working on this topic and pushing it. Here > are a > >> > few > >> > > > more > >> > > > > comments on the current state of FLIP-487: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Adaptive Scheduler will support record and query the rescale > >> history > >> > > > in[2]. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Shouldn't it have refer to reference #3, i.e. FLIP-495? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > nit: In the wiki, we do not need to add the references but use > >> links > >> > > with > >> > > > > proper link text (e.g. in the motivation paragraph). That should > >> > > improve > >> > > > > readability. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > extended schema of the response for /jobs/overview > >> > > > > > >> > > > > The extract of the schema extension is not precise: We should > >> show, > >> > > that > >> > > > > the new fields are added to the item type > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > (urn:jsonschema:org:apache:flink:runtime:messages:webmonitor:JobDetails). > >> > > > > About the field name formatting of "job-type": We still do not > >> have > >> > > this > >> > > > > one included in the code convention. But AFAIS, we usually > follow > >> > > > camelCase > >> > > > > format rather kebab-casing. But especially the Job overview uses > >> both > >> > > > > already. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Could we add tool tips to the headers of the rescale overview to > >> > > describe > >> > > > > the different IDs? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Schema of response for /jobs/:jobid/rescales > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I noticed that also for the other JSON schemas, we jump between > >> > formats > >> > > > > (even introducing snake_casing). Let's unify them and stick to > >> > > camelCase. > >> > > > > WDYT? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > For "summary.rescaleCounts", we might not need to add the > >> "_rescales" > >> > > > > suffix to the record fields since the parent indicate already > that > >> > all > >> > > of > >> > > > > the fields are rescale counts. We, therefore, could use > >> "inProgress", > >> > > > > "ignored", "completed", "failed". Do we see value in adding the > >> total > >> > > > > value? That could be easily calculated using the other four > >> metrics. > >> > > > Hence, > >> > > > > I think we can consider it as being redundant and remove it. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > "rescales_duration_stats" > >> > > > > > >> > > > > For all the "durationStats"? Can we add the time unit to make > >> things > >> > > > > clearer, e.g. "rescalesDurationStats" becomes > >> > > > > "rescalesDurationStatsInMillis"? ...same applies to the > timestamps > >> > > > > > >> > > > > "ignored_rescales_duration_stats" > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Are the stats useful for rescales which were actually not > >> executed? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > duration > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Rescale details already contain the start and end time. Adding > the > >> > > > duration > >> > > > > here shouldn't be necessary. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Rescale Overview UI > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > The screenshot shows "Acquired profile" twice for the slot > (based > >> on > >> > > the > >> > > > > details UI, the first one is supposed to be "required"). > >> > Additionally, > >> > > in > >> > > > > FLIP-495 we agreed on four metrics: previous, sufficient, > desired > >> and > >> > > > > acquired resources (for parallelism and profile). Should we use > >> those > >> > > in > >> > > > > the UI as well? We might want to add tool tips to the headers as > >> well > >> > > to > >> > > > > add a description for each of the metrics. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Rescale History UI > >> > > > > > >> > > > > The history looks nice. What making the duration of the > inProgress > >> > > > rescales > >> > > > > dynamic, i.e. counting the seconds up from the start time? > Keeping > >> > the > >> > > NA > >> > > > > is also fine if the dynamic approach is too complicated. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Best, > >> > > > > Matthias > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 11:24 AM Yuepeng Pan < > >> [email protected]> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Bumping this thread. Thanks! > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards, > >> > > > > > Yuepeng Pan > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On 2025/09/02 15:41:07 Yuepeng Pan wrote: > >> > > > > > > Hi, community. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > At present, FLIP-495[1][2] has gone through a new round of > >> > > > discussions > >> > > > > > and a preliminary general consensus has been reached, which > >> > provides > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > necessary premise for the discussion of the current > FLIP-487[3]. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Therefore, I would like to resume the discussion on the > >> current > >> > > FLIP. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The version of the current FLIP mainly covers and has > >> completed > >> > the > >> > > > > > following two aspects of design: > >> > > > > > > - The REST API design for querying rescale history > information > >> > > > > > > - The Web UI design for showing rescale history information > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Looking forward to your comments and suggestions. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > [1] > >> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/t3r9wdd5gpbqnvzw35kb3wb3d9brpnon > >> > > > > > > [2] > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-495%3A+Support+AdaptiveScheduler+record+and+query+the+rescale+history > >> > > > > > > [3] > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-487%3A+Show+history+of+rescales+in+Web+UI+for+AdaptiveScheduler > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best regards, > >> > > > > > > Yuepeng Pan > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > ---- Replied Message ---- > >> > > > > > > | From | Matthias Pohl<[email protected]> | > >> > > > > > > | Date | 12/2/2024 16:59 | > >> > > > > > > | To | <[email protected]> | > >> > > > > > > | Subject | Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-487: Show history of rescales > >> in > >> > Web > >> > > > UI > >> > > > > > for AdaptiveScheduler | > >> > > > > > > Hi Yuepeng, > >> > > > > > > thanks for the proposal. Having a way to see the history of > >> > > rescales > >> > > > > is a > >> > > > > > > nice feature, I guess. I went over the draft and have a few > >> > > > questions: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Can we reorganize the draft? Right now, we have some (for > >> > > > RescaleEvent, > >> > > > > > > Required/AcquiredParallelism) schema defined in the > "Proposed > >> > > > Changes" > >> > > > > > > section and some other schema under "Public Interfaces". It > >> would > >> > > be > >> > > > > nice > >> > > > > > > to have this more organized. > >> > > > > > > Just as a suggestion: In the end the proposed changes should > >> list > >> > > the > >> > > > > > > different REST endpoints you want to introduce (including > the > >> > > > > > corresponding > >> > > > > > > schemas for request and response). > >> > > > > > > --- > >> > > > > > > I'm also wondering whether it would make sense to focus on > the > >> > REST > >> > > > > > > endpoints in this FLIP and put the UI work in a separate > FLIP. > >> > > WDYT? > >> > > > > > > Decreasing the scope would probably help handling the > required > >> > > > changes. > >> > > > > > > --- > >> > > > > > > Have you considered adding the onChange event timestamp for > a > >> > > rescale > >> > > > > > event > >> > > > > > > as well? We introduced a separation of the job requirements > >> > change > >> > > > > event > >> > > > > > > and the actual rescale execution in FLIP-461 [1]. It might > be > >> > worth > >> > > > > > > documenting the time when a change was monitored for the > first > >> > time > >> > > > > that > >> > > > > > > triggered the rescale. WDYT? > >> > > > > > > --- > >> > > > > > > You're mentioning "comments" as a field of the RescaleEvent > in > >> > your > >> > > > > > > proposal. What's the use-case here? Where are these comments > >> > from? > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > (update) > >> > > > > > > A brief talk with Yuepeng on that topic revealed that the > >> field > >> > is > >> > > > > > supposed > >> > > > > > > to be used for errors that occurred during the rescale > >> operation. > >> > > My > >> > > > > take > >> > > > > > > on that one: > >> > > > > > > - We might want to reconsider the field name in that case > >> (maybe > >> > > > > > > errors_during_rescale?). "comments" seems to be quite > generic. > >> > > > > > > - Additionally, shouldn't we make this a list of errors > rather > >> > > than a > >> > > > > > > String field? > >> > > > > > > - How certain are we that we can associate errors to the > >> actual > >> > > > rescale > >> > > > > > > operation and rather than the error being caused by > something > >> > else? > >> > > > > > > --- > >> > > > > > > In the schema of the RescaleEvent you describe the three > >> > different > >> > > > > > > ID/numbers in the following way: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The ‘id’ is automatically incremental, The rescaleAttemptId > is > >> > > > > generated > >> > > > > > > based on one specified resource-requirement and the attempt > >> > number > >> > > is > >> > > > > > > generated based on rescaleAttemptId. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But there is no "attempt number" mentioned in the > RescaleEvent > >> > > > schema. > >> > > > > > > Additionally, what is the ID based on? Do we start from 0 > and > >> > just > >> > > > > > > increment? Or do we want to have a mechanism that ensures > that > >> > the > >> > > > IDs > >> > > > > > are > >> > > > > > > also unique/monotonically increasing after JobManager > >> failovers? > >> > > > > > > --- > >> > > > > > > For the parallelism schema: I might be misreading the draft > >> here > >> > > but > >> > > > > > you're > >> > > > > > > proposing to use the subtask name as the ID to refer to the > >> > > > JobVertex? > >> > > > > > That > >> > > > > > > the name might become quite long. What about using the > >> > JobVertexID > >> > > > > here. > >> > > > > > > That would be also more aligned to how the parallelism is > >> > > represented > >> > > > > by > >> > > > > > > the /jobs/<job-id>/resource-requirements endpoint. If we > want > >> to > >> > > add > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > > task name for readability purposes, we can still add this > one > >> as > >> > a > >> > > > > > taskName > >> > > > > > > field to the Required/AcquiredParallelism schema. > >> > > > > > > --- > >> > > > > > > Status field: > >> > > > > > > - What is the meaning of "TRYING"? I guess, we're more or > less > >> > > using > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > > AdaptiveScheduler states here, aren't we? Can't we > >> align/stick to > >> > > the > >> > > > > > > naming that's defined in the AdaptiveScheduler state? > >> > > > > > > --- > >> > > > > > > Do we really need a new REST endpoint for the configuration? > >> > Can't > >> > > we > >> > > > > get > >> > > > > > > the provided information already from the existing > >> configuration > >> > > > > > endpoint? > >> > > > > > > That said, I still find it useful to have a config tab in > the > >> UI > >> > at > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > end. > >> > > > > > > --- > >> > > > > > > For the summary endpoint: I see similarities to the > checkpoint > >> > > > summary > >> > > > > > > here. Not sure whether you already considered that but would > >> it > >> > > make > >> > > > > > sense > >> > > > > > > to align the field names in some way to have a consistent > >> > > > > look-and-feel? > >> > > > > > > I'm also wondering whether it makes sense to align the > schema > >> to > >> > > have > >> > > > > > > something like latest rescale, failed rescale, ... > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best, > >> > > > > > > Matthias > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > [1] > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-461%3A+Synchronize+rescaling+with+checkpoint+creation+to+minimize+reprocessing+for+the+AdaptiveScheduler > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 11:24 AM yuanfeng hu < > >> > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > +1, I think this feature is very useful for adaptive > >> scheduler. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Yuepeng Pan <[email protected]> 于2024年11月22日周五 18:38写道： > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi community, > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Currently, the Adaptive Scheduler already supports the REST > >> API > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to manually adjust[1] the parallelism of jobs, which > enhances > >> the > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > functionality of the Adaptive Scheduler. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > However, Adaptive Scheduler doesn't support displaying or > >> tracing > >> > > the > >> > > > > > > rescale history yet[2]. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > This makes it inconvenient for users/devs to quickly obtain > >> some > >> > > > > internal > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > information about the rescale history of the Adaptive > >> Scheduler. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > And showing the history of rescale events of > >> AdaptiveScheduler in > >> > > the > >> > > > > web > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > UI is very useful for users to make the next step for jobs. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Therefore, I created the FLIP-487[3] doc to support > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 'Show history of rescales in Web UI for AdaptiveScheduler'. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Please refer to the google document[3] for more details > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > about the proposed design and implementation. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Looking forward to any feedback and opinions on this > proposal. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > [1] > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-291%3A+Externalized+Declarative+Resource+Management > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-22258 > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > [3] > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WrLBkSkYe2tBQ3j66gKHFr2OB0d1HuHKDrRVr6B8nkM/edit?tab=t.0 > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thank you very much. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best, > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Regards. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Yuepeng Pan > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > > Best, > >> > > > > > > Yuanfeng > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
