Hi, community. This discussion has been ongoing for some time, and I sincerely appreciate the attention and support from the developers. If there is no further feedback this week, I will initiate a vote next week.
Best regards, Yuepeng Pan Yuepeng Pan <[email protected]> 于2026年1月5日周一 16:30写道： > 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 >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >
