eckpoint
> > > time when back-pressure occurs, and I totally agree with that the
> feature
> > > could be implemented in steps.
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------
> > > From:Roman Khachatryan
> > > Send Time:2020 Mar. 12 (Thu.) 01:33
> > > To:dev
---
> > From:Roman Khachatryan
> > Send Time:2020 Mar. 12 (Thu.) 01:33
> > To:dev ; Zhijiang
> > Subject:Re: [VOTE] [FLIP-76] Unaligned checkpoints
> >
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > Regarding Yu's suggestion about *R
+1 (non-binding)
Checkpoint timeout in cases of backpressure is hard to tune. I and our
users ever spent lots of time on that. It is great to have this feature.
Arvid Heise 于2020年3月10日周二 下午9:33写道：
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to start the vote for FLIP-76 [1], which is discussed and
> reached a
ted in steps.
>
>
> --
> From:Roman Khachatryan
> Send Time:2020 Mar. 12 (Thu.) 01:33
> To:dev ; Zhijiang
> Subject:Re: [VOTE] [FLIP-76] Unaligned checkpoints
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Regarding Yu's suggestion about *Road
:2020 Mar. 12 (Thu.) 01:33
To:dev ; Zhijiang
Subject:Re: [VOTE] [FLIP-76] Unaligned checkpoints
+1 (non-binding)
Regarding Yu's suggestion about *Roadmap* or *Future Work* section, I think
it's a good idea.
Currently, some MVP limitations are mentioned at the end of the document,
so we can
>
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16_MOQymzxrKvUHXh6QFr2AAXIKt_2vPUf8vzKy4H_tU/edit
>
> Best,
> Zhijiang
>
>
> --
> From:Piotr Nowojski
> Send Time:2020 Mar. 11 (Wed.) 21:19
> To:dev
> Sub
--
From:Piotr Nowojski
Send Time:2020 Mar. 11 (Wed.) 21:19
To:dev
Subject:Re: [VOTE] [FLIP-76] Unaligned checkpoints
+1 (binding).
Piotrek
> On 11 Mar 2020, at 09:19, David Anderson wrote:
>
> +1 I like where this
+1 (binding).
Piotrek
> On 11 Mar 2020, at 09:19, David Anderson wrote:
>
> +1 I like where this is headed.
>
> One question: during restore, it could happen that a new task manager is
> configured with fewer or smaller buffers than was previously the case. How
> will this be handled?
>
>
+1 I like where this is headed.
One question: during restore, it could happen that a new task manager is
configured with fewer or smaller buffers than was previously the case. How
will this be handled?
David
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:31 AM Arvid Heise wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> it's like you
Hi Thomas,
it's like you said. The first version will not support rescaling and mostly
addresses the concerns about making little to no progress because of
frequent crashes.
The main reason is that we cannot guarantee the ordering of non-keyed data
(and even keyed data in some weird cases) when
+1 on the overall design and thanks for the efforts!
I totally agree with the plan of implementing the MVP first. However, since
the FLIP is for the whole feature instead of only MVP, how about adding a
*Roadmap* or *Future Work* section to write down plans include (but not
limited to):
* Dynamic
+1
Thanks for putting this together, looking forward to the experimental
support in the next release.
One clarification: since the MVP won't support rescaling, does it imply
that savepoints will always use aligned checkpointing? If so, this would
still block the user from taking a savepoint and
Hi all,
I would like to start the vote for FLIP-76 [1], which is discussed and
reached a consensus in the discussion thread [2].
The vote will be open until March. 13th (72h), unless there is an objection
or not enough votes.
Thanks,
Arvid
[1]
13 matches
Mail list logo
