Github user tillrohrmann commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3304#discussion_r102748761
--- Diff:
flink-yarn/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/yarn/YarnResourceManager.java ---
@@ -342,6 +346,14 @@ private ContainerLaunchContext
createTaskExecutorLaunchContext(Resource resource
FiniteDuration teRegistrationTimeout = new
FiniteDuration(timeout, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
final Configuration taskManagerConfig =
BootstrapTools.generateTaskManagerConfiguration(
flinkConfig, "", 0, 1, teRegistrationTimeout);
+ // Add resource profile of slots to task executor config.
+ // For yarn, all slots in a task executor have same resource
profile
+ ByteArrayOutputStream output = new ByteArrayOutputStream();
+ ObjectOutputStream rpOutput = new ObjectOutputStream(output);
+
rpOutput.writeObject(getResourceProfile(priority.getPriority()));
+ rpOutput.close();
+
taskManagerConfig.setString(ConfigConstants.TASK_MANAGER_RESOURCE_PROFILE_KEY,
+ new
String(Base64.encodeBase64(output.toByteArray())));
--- End diff --
I think we shouldn't base64 encode the resource profile into the
`taskManagerConfig`. Instead use `InstantiationUtil.writeObjectToConfig` to
write serialized data to the configuration.
But I'm a little bit torn apart here because so far we used to transfer
this kind of information via the environment variables. Maybe @rmetzger can
chime in to say what the most idiomatic way to transfer TM data would be.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
