ferenc-csaky opened a new pull request, #22271:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/22271

   ## What is the purpose of the change
   
   Changes Akka remoting mechanism from the classic Netty based one to  Artery.
   
   
   ## Brief change log
   
   - Akka RPC does not depend on Netty anymore.
   - Changes in Akka configurations, as artery has some different config 
options, but mostly configs that are not needed anymore.
   
   
   ## Verifying this change
   
   After deploying a job, check the job and task managers on the Flink 
dashboard.
   
   This change is already covered by existing tests under the `flink-rpc` 
module.
   
   There are some parts that may require some discussion. I disabled the 
`RemoteAkkaRpcActorTest#failsRpcResultImmediatelyIfRemoteRpcServiceIsNotAvailable`
 test case, because with Artery, lifecycle monitoring is only triggered if the 
2 RPC service are on different nodes. Also, in the current iteration I did not 
exposed `watch-failure-detector` related fields in the `AkkaOptions`, which 
probably should be done, but first I just wanted to get some opinion about the 
way it is in general currently.
   
   
   ## Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:
   
     - Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): no (it removes Netty 
from `flink-rpc`)
     - The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with 
`@Public(Evolving)`: no
     - The serializers: no
     - The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): no
     - Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its 
components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn, ZooKeeper: yes
     - The S3 file system connector: no
   
   ## Documentation
   
     - Does this pull request introduce a new feature? no
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to