[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-24124?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17408898#comment-17408898
]
Till Rohrmann commented on FLINK-24124:
---------------------------------------
Introducing explicit configuration options for the pool size that defaults to
{{Hardware.getNumberCPUCores}} makes sense in my opinion. I think that the
specific case of the {{JobManagerSharedServices#scheduledExecutorService}} is
already covered by FLINK-23654. If you agree, then please close this ticket in
favour of the other ticket [~aitozi].
> Use explicit pool size to construct thread pool instead of
> Hardware.getNumberCPUCores()
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-24124
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-24124
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Runtime / Coordination
> Reporter: Aitozi
> Priority: Major
>
> Same to this
> [comments|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-21685?focusedCommentId=17303866&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-17303866].
> If we calculate the pool size based on hardware information in containerize
> environment, it will cause the value too small.
> But there are some code still use the {{Hardware.getNumberCPUCores()}} as the
> thread pool size like in
> {{JobManagerSharedServices#scheduledExecutorService}} .
> This pool will be used to do like :
> * dispose checkpoint (which is a I/O work)
> * connection to resourceManager
> * ...
> But we often only set one core for jobManger. This will lead to all the above
> action can only be executed one by one. So this ticket is meant to use
> explicit pool size to avoid these problems in containerize environment.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
