[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-23975?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17413059#comment-17413059
 ] 

Anton Kalashnikov commented on FLINK-23975:
-------------------------------------------

I suppose I have mistaken this scenario. I think that I observed this behavior 
when StateBackend was set to FileSystemStateBackend and there was not enough 
memory on the cluster. So it is pretty expected that it would be such 
degradation for the checkpoint. And of course, it is illegal to compare this 
number to this fully in-memory working cluster.
I also tried to reproduce that on a similar cluster with the same job and I 
didn't find any problem. Everything works perfectly fine. So I that we can 
close this ticket as not reproduced.

> High checkpoint time for unaligned checkpoint when throthling in source
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: FLINK-23975
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-23975
>             Project: Flink
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Runtime / Checkpointing, Runtime / Network
>    Affects Versions: 1.14.0, 1.13.2
>            Reporter: Anton Kalashnikov
>            Priority: Major
>
> According to a brief test, if we add a delay in the source before 
> emitting(outside of the checkpoint lock synchronization) it leads to 
> increasing unaligned checkpoint time(in my case from 1sec to 15sec).
> Approximate logic for throttling in source:
>  
>  
> {noformat}
>         @Override
>         public void run(SourceContext<Type> sourceContext) throws Exception {
>             while (running) {
>                 LockSupport.parkNanos(sleepNanos);
>                 synchronized (sourceContext.getCheckpointLock()) {
>                     sourceContext.collect(new 
> Type(ThreadLocalRandom.current().nextLong(), time, payload));
>                 }
>             }
>         }
> {noformat}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

Reply via email to