[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-16602?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17060658#comment-17060658
]
Yang Wang commented on FLINK-16602:
-----------------------------------
Aha, i think we are on the same page now. We still have two service, one is
"rest-service", and the other is "rpc service". The "rest service" is used for
internal or external http traffic and always needs to be created by the service
exposed type. The "rpc service" is used for forwarding traffic between TM and
JM. Only in the non-HA mode, it will be created.
If this is the case, i think it really makes sense to me. I am in favour of
this change.
For the headless service, if you mean only change it for the "rpc service",
just go ahead. It is the right direction.
> Rework the Service design for Kubernetes deployment
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-16602
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-16602
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Deployment / Kubernetes
> Affects Versions: 1.10.0
> Reporter: Canbin Zheng
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.11.0
>
>
> {color:#0e101a}At the moment we usually create two Services for a Flink
> application, one is the internal Service and the other is the so-called rest
> Service, the previous aims for forwarding request from the TMs to the JM, and
> the rest Service mainly serves as an external service for the Flink
> application. Here is a summary of the issues:{color}
> # {color:#0e101a}The functionality boundary of the two Services is not clear
> enough since the internal Service could also become the rest Service when its
> exposed type is ClusterIP.{color}
> # {color:#0e101a}For the high availability scenario, we create a useless
> internal Service which does not help forward the internal requests since the
> TMs directly communicate with the JM via the IP or hostname of the JM
> Pod.{color}
> # {color:#0e101a}Headless service is enough to help forward the internal
> requests from the TMs to the JM. Service of ClusterIP type would add
> corresponding rules into the iptables, too many rules in the iptables would
> lower the kube-proxy's efficiency in refreshing iptables while notified of
> change events, which could possibly cause severe stability problems in a
> Kubernetes cluster.{color}
>
> {color:#0e101a}Therefore, we propose some improvements to the current
> design:{color}
> # {color:#0e101a}Clarify the functionality boundary for the two Services,
> the internal Service only serves the internal communication from TMs to JM,
> while the rest Service makes the Flink cluster accessible from outside. The
> internal Service only exposes the RPC and BLOB ports while the external one
> exposes the REST port.{color}
> # {color:#0e101a}Do not create the internal Service in the high availability
> case.{color}
> # {color:#0e101a}Use HEADLESS type for the internal Service.{color}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
