[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3190?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15367828#comment-15367828
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on FLINK-3190:
---------------------------------------
Github user tillrohrmann commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1954#discussion_r70094658
--- Diff:
flink-runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/runtime/util/FixedSizeFifoQueue.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+/*
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+ * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
+ * distributed with this work for additional information
+ * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
+ * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+ * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+ * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ *
+ * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ * limitations under the License.
+ */
+
+package org.apache.flink.runtime.util;
+
+import java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue;
+
+/**
+ * Adding element to full queue removes its head and then adds new
element. It's why size of this queue is fixed.
+ * Example:
+ * <pre>
+ * {@code
+ * Queue q = new FixedSizeFifoQueue<Long>(2);
+ * q.add(1); // q = [1]
+ * q.add(2); // q = [1, 2]
+ * q.add(3); // q = [2, 3]
+ * q.peek(); // 2
+ * }
+ * </pre>
+ */
+public class FixedSizeFifoQueue<E> extends ArrayBlockingQueue<E> {
--- End diff --
I think it's not so efficient to use a `ArrayBlockingQueue` as the basis
for the implementation because we don't need protection against concurrency. I
think it would be great if we could use `ArrayDeque` instead.
> Retry rate limits for DataStream API
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-3190
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3190
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Sebastian Klemke
> Assignee: Michał Fijołek
> Priority: Minor
>
> For a long running stream processing job, absolute numbers of retries don't
> make much sense: The job will accumulate transient errors over time and will
> die eventually when thresholds are exceeded. Rate limits are better suited in
> this scenario: A job should only die, if it fails too often in a given time
> frame. To better overcome transient errors, retry delays could be used, as
> suggested in other issues.
> Absolute numbers of retries can still make sense, if failing operators don't
> make any progress at all. We can measure progress by OperatorState changes
> and by observing output, as long as the operator in question is not a sink.
> If operator state changes and/or operator produces output, we can assume it
> makes progress.
> As an example, let's say we configured a retry rate limit of 10 retries per
> hour and a non-sink operator A. If the operator fails once every 10 minutes
> and produces output between failures, it should not lead to job termination.
> But if the operator fails 11 times in an hour or does not produce output
> between 11 consecutive failures, job should be terminated.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
