[RESULT][VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Hi all, The voting time for FLIP-108[1] has passed. I'm closing the vote now. There were 3 + 3 votes, 3 of which are binding: - Till (binding) - Becket (binding) - Stephan (binding) - Xintong Song (non-binding) - Canbin Zheng (non-binding) - Yang Wang (non-binding) There were no -1 votes. Thus, FLIP-108 has been accepted. Thanks everyone for joining the discussion and giving feedback! [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-108%3A+Add+GPU+support+in+Flink Best, Yangze Guo
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
+1
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 4:17 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
> Hi Aljoscha,
>
> Thanks for your advice. +1 to align the config pattern.
>
> I also agree that we need to move the long discussion to the [DISCUSS]
> thread. Sorry if it bothers you.
>
> Best,
> Yangze Guo
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:52 AM Becket Qin wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Aljoscha. It is important to keep API the same style. And we
> > probably should move the long discussion to the [DISCUSS] thread.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:27 PM Aljoscha Krettek
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Is the only really new method on the public APIs
> > > getExternalResourceInfos(..) on the RuntimeContext? I'm generally quite
> > > skeptical about adding anything to that interface but the method seems
> ok.
> > >
> > > Side note for the configuration keys: the pattern is similar to metrics
> > > configuration. There we have "metrics.reporters" = > > names> and then metrics.reporter Your proposal is
> > > slightly different in that it uses "external-resource.list". Keeping
> > > this in line with metrics configuration would suggest to use
> > > "external-resources", and then "external-resource". What
> > > do you think?
> > >
> > > Also, why is there this long discussion in a [VOTE] thread?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Aljoscha
> > >
> > > On 15.04.20 10:32, Yangze Guo wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the explanation. I do not have a strong opinion regarding
> > > > this interface. So, if it is better from your perspective, I'm +1 for
> > > > this. I just saying it may not help a lot regarding the type-safe.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the bounded wildcard type, yes, it's the implementation
> > > > detail. If it won't make a difference for user, I'm also +1 for not
> > > > using bounded wildcard type there.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Yangze Guo
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:23 PM Till Rohrmann
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I think Set
> > > >> getExternalResourceInfos(String resourceName, Class
> > > >> externalResourceType) is not less flexible than the other API since
> you
> > > can
> > > >> always pass in ExternalResourceInfo.class as the second argument.
> > > >>
> > > >> The benefit I see for the user is that he does not have to do the
> > > >> instanceof checks and type casts himself. This is admittedly not a
> big
> > > deal
> > > >> but still a better API imo.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think the interface of the Driver and what is returned by the
> > > >> RuntimeContext don't have to have the same type because you can
> cast it
> > > or
> > > >> repack it. If the current implementation simply stores what the
> Driver
> > > >> returns and RuntimeContext returns this map, then it might seem that
> > > there
> > > >> is a connection. But this should be an implementation detail rather
> > > than a
> > > >> necessity.
> > > >>
> > > >> Maybe we could also pull in someone from the SDK team to give us his
> > > >> opinion on the user facing API.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers,
> > > >> Till
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:13 AM Xintong Song <
> tonysong...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > >
> > > I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but
> I
> > > think
> > > that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because
> > > there is
> > > no explicit casting required.
> > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > Set
> > > >>> getExternalResourceInfos(String
> > > resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
> > > }
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm not sure how less efforts is required from users to pass in a
> > > >>> `externalResourceType` compared to do an explicit type casting.
> > > >>> A potential side effect of passing in a `externalResourceType` is
> > > that, it
> > > >>> requires user (e.g. the operator) to know which specific type
> should be
> > > >>> returned in advance, which may limit the flexibility.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> E.g., we might have an operator that can work with multiple
> different
> > > >>> implementations of `ExternalResourceInfo`. It may decide its
> behavior
> > > based
> > > >>> on the actually type returned by `getExternalResourceInfos` at
> runtime.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thank you~
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Xintong Song
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:09 PM Yangze Guo
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > @Till
> > > If we add "Class externalResourceType" param, what if there are
> > > multiple subtypes in the ExternalResourceInfos set of one external
> > > resource? It seems user has to set the T to ExternalResourceInfo
> and
> > > the mechanism is useless at this case.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Yangze Guo
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:57 PM Till Rohrmann <
> trohrm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ok, if there can be multiple resources of the same type then we
> > > definitely
> > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Hi Aljoscha,
Thanks for your advice. +1 to align the config pattern.
I also agree that we need to move the long discussion to the [DISCUSS]
thread. Sorry if it bothers you.
Best,
Yangze Guo
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 7:52 AM Becket Qin wrote:
>
> I agree with Aljoscha. It is important to keep API the same style. And we
> probably should move the long discussion to the [DISCUSS] thread.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:27 PM Aljoscha Krettek
> wrote:
>
> > Is the only really new method on the public APIs
> > getExternalResourceInfos(..) on the RuntimeContext? I'm generally quite
> > skeptical about adding anything to that interface but the method seems ok.
> >
> > Side note for the configuration keys: the pattern is similar to metrics
> > configuration. There we have "metrics.reporters" = > names> and then metrics.reporter Your proposal is
> > slightly different in that it uses "external-resource.list". Keeping
> > this in line with metrics configuration would suggest to use
> > "external-resources", and then "external-resource". What
> > do you think?
> >
> > Also, why is there this long discussion in a [VOTE] thread?
> >
> > Best,
> > Aljoscha
> >
> > On 15.04.20 10:32, Yangze Guo wrote:
> > > Thanks for the explanation. I do not have a strong opinion regarding
> > > this interface. So, if it is better from your perspective, I'm +1 for
> > > this. I just saying it may not help a lot regarding the type-safe.
> > >
> > > Regarding the bounded wildcard type, yes, it's the implementation
> > > detail. If it won't make a difference for user, I'm also +1 for not
> > > using bounded wildcard type there.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Yangze Guo
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:23 PM Till Rohrmann
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I think Set
> > >> getExternalResourceInfos(String resourceName, Class
> > >> externalResourceType) is not less flexible than the other API since you
> > can
> > >> always pass in ExternalResourceInfo.class as the second argument.
> > >>
> > >> The benefit I see for the user is that he does not have to do the
> > >> instanceof checks and type casts himself. This is admittedly not a big
> > deal
> > >> but still a better API imo.
> > >>
> > >> I think the interface of the Driver and what is returned by the
> > >> RuntimeContext don't have to have the same type because you can cast it
> > or
> > >> repack it. If the current implementation simply stores what the Driver
> > >> returns and RuntimeContext returns this map, then it might seem that
> > there
> > >> is a connection. But this should be an implementation detail rather
> > than a
> > >> necessity.
> > >>
> > >> Maybe we could also pull in someone from the SDK team to give us his
> > >> opinion on the user facing API.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Till
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:13 AM Xintong Song
> > wrote:
> > >>
> >
> > I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I
> > think
> > that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because
> > there is
> > no explicit casting required.
> > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > Set
> > >>> getExternalResourceInfos(String
> > resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
> > }
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm not sure how less efforts is required from users to pass in a
> > >>> `externalResourceType` compared to do an explicit type casting.
> > >>> A potential side effect of passing in a `externalResourceType` is
> > that, it
> > >>> requires user (e.g. the operator) to know which specific type should be
> > >>> returned in advance, which may limit the flexibility.
> > >>>
> > >>> E.g., we might have an operator that can work with multiple different
> > >>> implementations of `ExternalResourceInfo`. It may decide its behavior
> > based
> > >>> on the actually type returned by `getExternalResourceInfos` at runtime.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you~
> > >>>
> > >>> Xintong Song
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:09 PM Yangze Guo wrote:
> > >>>
> > @Till
> > If we add "Class externalResourceType" param, what if there are
> > multiple subtypes in the ExternalResourceInfos set of one external
> > resource? It seems user has to set the T to ExternalResourceInfo and
> > the mechanism is useless at this case.
> >
> > Best,
> > Yangze Guo
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:57 PM Till Rohrmann
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, if there can be multiple resources of the same type then we
> > definitely
> > > need the name as a differentiator.
> > >
> > > I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I
> > >>> think
> > > that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because
> > there
> > >>> is
> > > no explicit casting required.
> > >
> > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > Set
> > getExternalResourceInfos(String
>
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
I agree with Aljoscha. It is important to keep API the same style. And we
probably should move the long discussion to the [DISCUSS] thread.
Thanks,
Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:27 PM Aljoscha Krettek
wrote:
> Is the only really new method on the public APIs
> getExternalResourceInfos(..) on the RuntimeContext? I'm generally quite
> skeptical about adding anything to that interface but the method seems ok.
>
> Side note for the configuration keys: the pattern is similar to metrics
> configuration. There we have "metrics.reporters" = names> and then metrics.reporter Your proposal is
> slightly different in that it uses "external-resource.list". Keeping
> this in line with metrics configuration would suggest to use
> "external-resources", and then "external-resource". What
> do you think?
>
> Also, why is there this long discussion in a [VOTE] thread?
>
> Best,
> Aljoscha
>
> On 15.04.20 10:32, Yangze Guo wrote:
> > Thanks for the explanation. I do not have a strong opinion regarding
> > this interface. So, if it is better from your perspective, I'm +1 for
> > this. I just saying it may not help a lot regarding the type-safe.
> >
> > Regarding the bounded wildcard type, yes, it's the implementation
> > detail. If it won't make a difference for user, I'm also +1 for not
> > using bounded wildcard type there.
> >
> > Best,
> > Yangze Guo
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:23 PM Till Rohrmann
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think Set
> >> getExternalResourceInfos(String resourceName, Class
> >> externalResourceType) is not less flexible than the other API since you
> can
> >> always pass in ExternalResourceInfo.class as the second argument.
> >>
> >> The benefit I see for the user is that he does not have to do the
> >> instanceof checks and type casts himself. This is admittedly not a big
> deal
> >> but still a better API imo.
> >>
> >> I think the interface of the Driver and what is returned by the
> >> RuntimeContext don't have to have the same type because you can cast it
> or
> >> repack it. If the current implementation simply stores what the Driver
> >> returns and RuntimeContext returns this map, then it might seem that
> there
> >> is a connection. But this should be an implementation detail rather
> than a
> >> necessity.
> >>
> >> Maybe we could also pull in someone from the SDK team to give us his
> >> opinion on the user facing API.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Till
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:13 AM Xintong Song
> wrote:
> >>
>
> I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I
> think
> that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because
> there is
> no explicit casting required.
> public interface RuntimeContext {
> Set
> >>> getExternalResourceInfos(String
> resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
> }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure how less efforts is required from users to pass in a
> >>> `externalResourceType` compared to do an explicit type casting.
> >>> A potential side effect of passing in a `externalResourceType` is
> that, it
> >>> requires user (e.g. the operator) to know which specific type should be
> >>> returned in advance, which may limit the flexibility.
> >>>
> >>> E.g., we might have an operator that can work with multiple different
> >>> implementations of `ExternalResourceInfo`. It may decide its behavior
> based
> >>> on the actually type returned by `getExternalResourceInfos` at runtime.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you~
> >>>
> >>> Xintong Song
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:09 PM Yangze Guo wrote:
> >>>
> @Till
> If we add "Class externalResourceType" param, what if there are
> multiple subtypes in the ExternalResourceInfos set of one external
> resource? It seems user has to set the T to ExternalResourceInfo and
> the mechanism is useless at this case.
>
> Best,
> Yangze Guo
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:57 PM Till Rohrmann
> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, if there can be multiple resources of the same type then we
> definitely
> > need the name as a differentiator.
> >
> > I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I
> >>> think
> > that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because
> there
> >>> is
> > no explicit casting required.
> >
> > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > Set
> getExternalResourceInfos(String
> > resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
> > }
> >
> > One minor note: I think the value of the returned map does not need
> to
> use
> > a bounded wildcard type because for the user it won't make a
> >>> difference.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:20 AM Yangze Guo
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Till,
> >>
> >>> ExternalResourceDriver could return a Set >> ExternalResourceInfo>.
> >> It sounds good.
> >>
>
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Is the only really new method on the public APIs
getExternalResourceInfos(..) on the RuntimeContext? I'm generally quite
skeptical about adding anything to that interface but the method seems ok.
Side note for the configuration keys: the pattern is similar to metrics
configuration. There we have "metrics.reporters" = names> and then metrics.reporter Your proposal is
slightly different in that it uses "external-resource.list". Keeping
this in line with metrics configuration would suggest to use
"external-resources", and then "external-resource". What
do you think?
Also, why is there this long discussion in a [VOTE] thread?
Best,
Aljoscha
On 15.04.20 10:32, Yangze Guo wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. I do not have a strong opinion regarding
this interface. So, if it is better from your perspective, I'm +1 for
this. I just saying it may not help a lot regarding the type-safe.
Regarding the bounded wildcard type, yes, it's the implementation
detail. If it won't make a difference for user, I'm also +1 for not
using bounded wildcard type there.
Best,
Yangze Guo
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:23 PM Till Rohrmann wrote:
I think Set
getExternalResourceInfos(String resourceName, Class
externalResourceType) is not less flexible than the other API since you can
always pass in ExternalResourceInfo.class as the second argument.
The benefit I see for the user is that he does not have to do the
instanceof checks and type casts himself. This is admittedly not a big deal
but still a better API imo.
I think the interface of the Driver and what is returned by the
RuntimeContext don't have to have the same type because you can cast it or
repack it. If the current implementation simply stores what the Driver
returns and RuntimeContext returns this map, then it might seem that there
is a connection. But this should be an implementation detail rather than a
necessity.
Maybe we could also pull in someone from the SDK team to give us his
opinion on the user facing API.
Cheers,
Till
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:13 AM Xintong Song wrote:
I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I think
that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because there is
no explicit casting required.
public interface RuntimeContext {
Set
getExternalResourceInfos(String
resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
}
I'm not sure how less efforts is required from users to pass in a
`externalResourceType` compared to do an explicit type casting.
A potential side effect of passing in a `externalResourceType` is that, it
requires user (e.g. the operator) to know which specific type should be
returned in advance, which may limit the flexibility.
E.g., we might have an operator that can work with multiple different
implementations of `ExternalResourceInfo`. It may decide its behavior based
on the actually type returned by `getExternalResourceInfos` at runtime.
Thank you~
Xintong Song
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:09 PM Yangze Guo wrote:
@Till
If we add "Class externalResourceType" param, what if there are
multiple subtypes in the ExternalResourceInfos set of one external
resource? It seems user has to set the T to ExternalResourceInfo and
the mechanism is useless at this case.
Best,
Yangze Guo
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:57 PM Till Rohrmann
wrote:
Ok, if there can be multiple resources of the same type then we
definitely
need the name as a differentiator.
I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I
think
that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because there
is
no explicit casting required.
public interface RuntimeContext {
Set
getExternalResourceInfos(String
resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
}
One minor note: I think the value of the returned map does not need to
use
a bounded wildcard type because for the user it won't make a
difference.
Cheers,
Till
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:20 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
Hi Till,
ExternalResourceDriver could return a Set
ExternalResourceInfo>.
It sounds good.
then one could make the interface type-safe by changing it to
public interface RuntimeContext {
Set
getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
}
I think it may not help.
- I think the assumption of "there is always only one resource of a
specific type" is too strong. The external resource framework should
only assume it gets a set of ExternalResourceInfo from the driver.
The
concrete implementation is given by user. So, if we give such an
assumption, it would hurt the flexibility. There could be multiple
types in the returned externalResourceInfo set. There could also be
different types returned from different driver implementation or
version. The contract about the return type between Driver and
Operator should be guaranteed by user.
- Since the Drivers are loaded dynamically in runtime, if there is a
type mismatch, the job would fail in runtime instead of in compile
time, no matter the type
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Thanks for the explanation. I do not have a strong opinion regarding
this interface. So, if it is better from your perspective, I'm +1 for
this. I just saying it may not help a lot regarding the type-safe.
Regarding the bounded wildcard type, yes, it's the implementation
detail. If it won't make a difference for user, I'm also +1 for not
using bounded wildcard type there.
Best,
Yangze Guo
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:23 PM Till Rohrmann wrote:
>
> I think Set
> getExternalResourceInfos(String resourceName, Class
> externalResourceType) is not less flexible than the other API since you can
> always pass in ExternalResourceInfo.class as the second argument.
>
> The benefit I see for the user is that he does not have to do the
> instanceof checks and type casts himself. This is admittedly not a big deal
> but still a better API imo.
>
> I think the interface of the Driver and what is returned by the
> RuntimeContext don't have to have the same type because you can cast it or
> repack it. If the current implementation simply stores what the Driver
> returns and RuntimeContext returns this map, then it might seem that there
> is a connection. But this should be an implementation detail rather than a
> necessity.
>
> Maybe we could also pull in someone from the SDK team to give us his
> opinion on the user facing API.
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:13 AM Xintong Song wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I think
> > > that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because there is
> > > no explicit casting required.
> > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > Set
> > getExternalResourceInfos(String
> > > resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
> > > }
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure how less efforts is required from users to pass in a
> > `externalResourceType` compared to do an explicit type casting.
> > A potential side effect of passing in a `externalResourceType` is that, it
> > requires user (e.g. the operator) to know which specific type should be
> > returned in advance, which may limit the flexibility.
> >
> > E.g., we might have an operator that can work with multiple different
> > implementations of `ExternalResourceInfo`. It may decide its behavior based
> > on the actually type returned by `getExternalResourceInfos` at runtime.
> >
> >
> > Thank you~
> >
> > Xintong Song
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:09 PM Yangze Guo wrote:
> >
> > > @Till
> > > If we add "Class externalResourceType" param, what if there are
> > > multiple subtypes in the ExternalResourceInfos set of one external
> > > resource? It seems user has to set the T to ExternalResourceInfo and
> > > the mechanism is useless at this case.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Yangze Guo
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:57 PM Till Rohrmann
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ok, if there can be multiple resources of the same type then we
> > > definitely
> > > > need the name as a differentiator.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I
> > think
> > > > that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because there
> > is
> > > > no explicit casting required.
> > > >
> > > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > > Set
> > > getExternalResourceInfos(String
> > > > resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > One minor note: I think the value of the returned map does not need to
> > > use
> > > > a bounded wildcard type because for the user it won't make a
> > difference.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Till
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:20 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Till,
> > > > >
> > > > > > ExternalResourceDriver could return a Set > > > > ExternalResourceInfo>.
> > > > > It sounds good.
> > > > >
> > > > > > then one could make the interface type-safe by changing it to
> > > > > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > > > > Set
> > > > > > getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
> > > > > > }
> > > > > I think it may not help.
> > > > > - I think the assumption of "there is always only one resource of a
> > > > > specific type" is too strong. The external resource framework should
> > > > > only assume it gets a set of ExternalResourceInfo from the driver.
> > The
> > > > > concrete implementation is given by user. So, if we give such an
> > > > > assumption, it would hurt the flexibility. There could be multiple
> > > > > types in the returned externalResourceInfo set. There could also be
> > > > > different types returned from different driver implementation or
> > > > > version. The contract about the return type between Driver and
> > > > > Operator should be guaranteed by user.
> > > > > - Since the Drivers are loaded dynamically in runtime, if there is a
> > > > > type mismatch, the job would fail in runtime instead of in compile
> > > > > time, no matter the type extraction is done by Operator or Flink
> > core.
> > > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
True, the user can always pass in ExternalResourceInfo.class to retain the
flexibility.
As long as the flexibility is not harmed, I'm ok with both. It's probably
better to do the type checking and exception handling for users.
Thank you~
Xintong Song
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:23 PM Till Rohrmann wrote:
> I think Set
> getExternalResourceInfos(String resourceName, Class
> externalResourceType) is not less flexible than the other API since you can
> always pass in ExternalResourceInfo.class as the second argument.
>
> The benefit I see for the user is that he does not have to do the
> instanceof checks and type casts himself. This is admittedly not a big deal
> but still a better API imo.
>
> I think the interface of the Driver and what is returned by the
> RuntimeContext don't have to have the same type because you can cast it or
> repack it. If the current implementation simply stores what the Driver
> returns and RuntimeContext returns this map, then it might seem that there
> is a connection. But this should be an implementation detail rather than a
> necessity.
>
> Maybe we could also pull in someone from the SDK team to give us his
> opinion on the user facing API.
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:13 AM Xintong Song
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I
> think
> > > that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because there
> is
> > > no explicit casting required.
> > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > Set
> > getExternalResourceInfos(String
> > > resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
> > > }
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure how less efforts is required from users to pass in a
> > `externalResourceType` compared to do an explicit type casting.
> > A potential side effect of passing in a `externalResourceType` is that,
> it
> > requires user (e.g. the operator) to know which specific type should be
> > returned in advance, which may limit the flexibility.
> >
> > E.g., we might have an operator that can work with multiple different
> > implementations of `ExternalResourceInfo`. It may decide its behavior
> based
> > on the actually type returned by `getExternalResourceInfos` at runtime.
> >
> >
> > Thank you~
> >
> > Xintong Song
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:09 PM Yangze Guo wrote:
> >
> > > @Till
> > > If we add "Class externalResourceType" param, what if there are
> > > multiple subtypes in the ExternalResourceInfos set of one external
> > > resource? It seems user has to set the T to ExternalResourceInfo and
> > > the mechanism is useless at this case.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Yangze Guo
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:57 PM Till Rohrmann
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ok, if there can be multiple resources of the same type then we
> > > definitely
> > > > need the name as a differentiator.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I
> > think
> > > > that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because
> there
> > is
> > > > no explicit casting required.
> > > >
> > > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > > Set
> > > getExternalResourceInfos(String
> > > > resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > One minor note: I think the value of the returned map does not need
> to
> > > use
> > > > a bounded wildcard type because for the user it won't make a
> > difference.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Till
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:20 AM Yangze Guo
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Till,
> > > > >
> > > > > > ExternalResourceDriver could return a Set > > > > ExternalResourceInfo>.
> > > > > It sounds good.
> > > > >
> > > > > > then one could make the interface type-safe by changing it to
> > > > > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > > > > Set
> > > > > > getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
> > > > > > }
> > > > > I think it may not help.
> > > > > - I think the assumption of "there is always only one resource of a
> > > > > specific type" is too strong. The external resource framework
> should
> > > > > only assume it gets a set of ExternalResourceInfo from the driver.
> > The
> > > > > concrete implementation is given by user. So, if we give such an
> > > > > assumption, it would hurt the flexibility. There could be multiple
> > > > > types in the returned externalResourceInfo set. There could also be
> > > > > different types returned from different driver implementation or
> > > > > version. The contract about the return type between Driver and
> > > > > Operator should be guaranteed by user.
> > > > > - Since the Drivers are loaded dynamically in runtime, if there is
> a
> > > > > type mismatch, the job would fail in runtime instead of in compile
> > > > > time, no matter the type extraction is done by Operator or Flink
> > core.
> > > > > This interface would not gain benefits for type safety.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Yangze Guo
> > > > >
> > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
I think Set
getExternalResourceInfos(String resourceName, Class
externalResourceType) is not less flexible than the other API since you can
always pass in ExternalResourceInfo.class as the second argument.
The benefit I see for the user is that he does not have to do the
instanceof checks and type casts himself. This is admittedly not a big deal
but still a better API imo.
I think the interface of the Driver and what is returned by the
RuntimeContext don't have to have the same type because you can cast it or
repack it. If the current implementation simply stores what the Driver
returns and RuntimeContext returns this map, then it might seem that there
is a connection. But this should be an implementation detail rather than a
necessity.
Maybe we could also pull in someone from the SDK team to give us his
opinion on the user facing API.
Cheers,
Till
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:13 AM Xintong Song wrote:
> >
> > I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I think
> > that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because there is
> > no explicit casting required.
> > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > Set
> getExternalResourceInfos(String
> > resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
> > }
>
>
> I'm not sure how less efforts is required from users to pass in a
> `externalResourceType` compared to do an explicit type casting.
> A potential side effect of passing in a `externalResourceType` is that, it
> requires user (e.g. the operator) to know which specific type should be
> returned in advance, which may limit the flexibility.
>
> E.g., we might have an operator that can work with multiple different
> implementations of `ExternalResourceInfo`. It may decide its behavior based
> on the actually type returned by `getExternalResourceInfos` at runtime.
>
>
> Thank you~
>
> Xintong Song
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:09 PM Yangze Guo wrote:
>
> > @Till
> > If we add "Class externalResourceType" param, what if there are
> > multiple subtypes in the ExternalResourceInfos set of one external
> > resource? It seems user has to set the T to ExternalResourceInfo and
> > the mechanism is useless at this case.
> >
> > Best,
> > Yangze Guo
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:57 PM Till Rohrmann
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, if there can be multiple resources of the same type then we
> > definitely
> > > need the name as a differentiator.
> > >
> > > I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I
> think
> > > that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because there
> is
> > > no explicit casting required.
> > >
> > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > Set
> > getExternalResourceInfos(String
> > > resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
> > > }
> > >
> > > One minor note: I think the value of the returned map does not need to
> > use
> > > a bounded wildcard type because for the user it won't make a
> difference.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Till
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:20 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Till,
> > > >
> > > > > ExternalResourceDriver could return a Set > > > ExternalResourceInfo>.
> > > > It sounds good.
> > > >
> > > > > then one could make the interface type-safe by changing it to
> > > > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > > > Set
> > > > > getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
> > > > > }
> > > > I think it may not help.
> > > > - I think the assumption of "there is always only one resource of a
> > > > specific type" is too strong. The external resource framework should
> > > > only assume it gets a set of ExternalResourceInfo from the driver.
> The
> > > > concrete implementation is given by user. So, if we give such an
> > > > assumption, it would hurt the flexibility. There could be multiple
> > > > types in the returned externalResourceInfo set. There could also be
> > > > different types returned from different driver implementation or
> > > > version. The contract about the return type between Driver and
> > > > Operator should be guaranteed by user.
> > > > - Since the Drivers are loaded dynamically in runtime, if there is a
> > > > type mismatch, the job would fail in runtime instead of in compile
> > > > time, no matter the type extraction is done by Operator or Flink
> core.
> > > > This interface would not gain benefits for type safety.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Yangze Guo
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:38 AM Till Rohrmann
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
> > > > >
> > > > > If ExternalResourceInfo is a marker interface, then
> > > > ExternalResourceDriver
> > > > > could return a Set. This makes is a
> > bit
> > > > > nicer for the implementor because he can use the concrete subtype.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we assume that users will always cast the ExternalResourceInfo
> > > > instance
> > > > > into the concrete subtype and if we assume that there is always
> only
> > one
> > > > > resource of a
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Is this something we expect to happen? If there is an external
resource implementation which shows this behaviour I assume that it is
quite hard to use for a user.
In this case, externalResourceType could also be set
to ExternalResourceInfo.class or any common super type. Then the API won't
give you any benefit and you would have to do the type casting yourself, of
course.
Cheers,
Till
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:09 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
> @Till
> If we add "Class externalResourceType" param, what if there are
> multiple subtypes in the ExternalResourceInfos set of one external
> resource? It seems user has to set the T to ExternalResourceInfo and
> the mechanism is useless at this case.
>
> Best,
> Yangze Guo
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:57 PM Till Rohrmann
> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, if there can be multiple resources of the same type then we
> definitely
> > need the name as a differentiator.
> >
> > I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I think
> > that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because there is
> > no explicit casting required.
> >
> > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > Set
> getExternalResourceInfos(String
> > resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
> > }
> >
> > One minor note: I think the value of the returned map does not need to
> use
> > a bounded wildcard type because for the user it won't make a difference.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:20 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Till,
> > >
> > > > ExternalResourceDriver could return a Set > > ExternalResourceInfo>.
> > > It sounds good.
> > >
> > > > then one could make the interface type-safe by changing it to
> > > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > > Set
> > > > getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
> > > > }
> > > I think it may not help.
> > > - I think the assumption of "there is always only one resource of a
> > > specific type" is too strong. The external resource framework should
> > > only assume it gets a set of ExternalResourceInfo from the driver. The
> > > concrete implementation is given by user. So, if we give such an
> > > assumption, it would hurt the flexibility. There could be multiple
> > > types in the returned externalResourceInfo set. There could also be
> > > different types returned from different driver implementation or
> > > version. The contract about the return type between Driver and
> > > Operator should be guaranteed by user.
> > > - Since the Drivers are loaded dynamically in runtime, if there is a
> > > type mismatch, the job would fail in runtime instead of in compile
> > > time, no matter the type extraction is done by Operator or Flink core.
> > > This interface would not gain benefits for type safety.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Yangze Guo
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:38 AM Till Rohrmann
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
> > > >
> > > > If ExternalResourceInfo is a marker interface, then
> > > ExternalResourceDriver
> > > > could return a Set. This makes is a
> bit
> > > > nicer for the implementor because he can use the concrete subtype.
> > > >
> > > > If we assume that users will always cast the ExternalResourceInfo
> > > instance
> > > > into the concrete subtype and if we assume that there is always only
> one
> > > > resource of a specific type, then one could make the interface
> type-safe
> > > by
> > > > changing it to
> > > >
> > > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > > Set
> > > > getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > If we want to support multiple GPU resources, then one would need to
> use
> > > > the name of the respective resource as well.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Till
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:19 AM Xintong Song
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
> > > > > The latest FLIP looks good to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > nit: Javadoc of `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` is
> out of
> > > > > sync.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Retrieve the information of the external resources according to
> the
> > > > > > resourceProfile.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you~
> > > > >
> > > > > Xintong Song
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:04 AM Becket Qin
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Good feedback form Xintong. The latest FLIP looks good to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 9:20 AM Yangze Guo
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > > > I've updated the FLIP accordingly. Please take a look. If you
> have
> > > any
> > > > > > > further concerns please let me know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Yangze Guo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:40 PM Yangze Guo >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback, Xintong.
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
> One minor note: I think the value of the returned map does not need to use a
> bounded wildcard type because for the user it won't make a difference.
Since the Driver now use a bounded wildcard type, it seems we could
not hold the return value(Set) with
Set. Am I right?
Best,
Yangze Guo
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:08 PM Yangze Guo wrote:
>
> @Till
> If we add "Class externalResourceType" param, what if there are
> multiple subtypes in the ExternalResourceInfos set of one external
> resource? It seems user has to set the T to ExternalResourceInfo and
> the mechanism is useless at this case.
>
> Best,
> Yangze Guo
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:57 PM Till Rohrmann wrote:
> >
> > Ok, if there can be multiple resources of the same type then we definitely
> > need the name as a differentiator.
> >
> > I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I think
> > that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because there is
> > no explicit casting required.
> >
> > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > Set getExternalResourceInfos(String
> > resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
> > }
> >
> > One minor note: I think the value of the returned map does not need to use
> > a bounded wildcard type because for the user it won't make a difference.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:20 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Till,
> > >
> > > > ExternalResourceDriver could return a Set > > ExternalResourceInfo>.
> > > It sounds good.
> > >
> > > > then one could make the interface type-safe by changing it to
> > > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > > Set
> > > > getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
> > > > }
> > > I think it may not help.
> > > - I think the assumption of "there is always only one resource of a
> > > specific type" is too strong. The external resource framework should
> > > only assume it gets a set of ExternalResourceInfo from the driver. The
> > > concrete implementation is given by user. So, if we give such an
> > > assumption, it would hurt the flexibility. There could be multiple
> > > types in the returned externalResourceInfo set. There could also be
> > > different types returned from different driver implementation or
> > > version. The contract about the return type between Driver and
> > > Operator should be guaranteed by user.
> > > - Since the Drivers are loaded dynamically in runtime, if there is a
> > > type mismatch, the job would fail in runtime instead of in compile
> > > time, no matter the type extraction is done by Operator or Flink core.
> > > This interface would not gain benefits for type safety.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Yangze Guo
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:38 AM Till Rohrmann
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
> > > >
> > > > If ExternalResourceInfo is a marker interface, then
> > > ExternalResourceDriver
> > > > could return a Set. This makes is a bit
> > > > nicer for the implementor because he can use the concrete subtype.
> > > >
> > > > If we assume that users will always cast the ExternalResourceInfo
> > > instance
> > > > into the concrete subtype and if we assume that there is always only one
> > > > resource of a specific type, then one could make the interface type-safe
> > > by
> > > > changing it to
> > > >
> > > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > > Set
> > > > getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > If we want to support multiple GPU resources, then one would need to use
> > > > the name of the respective resource as well.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Till
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:19 AM Xintong Song
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
> > > > > The latest FLIP looks good to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > nit: Javadoc of `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` is out
> > > > > of
> > > > > sync.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Retrieve the information of the external resources according to the
> > > > > > resourceProfile.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you~
> > > > >
> > > > > Xintong Song
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:04 AM Becket Qin
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Good feedback form Xintong. The latest FLIP looks good to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 9:20 AM Yangze Guo
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > > > I've updated the FLIP accordingly. Please take a look. If you have
> > > any
> > > > > > > further concerns please let me know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Yangze Guo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:40 PM Yangze Guo
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback, Xintong.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Should we have a factory interface for
> > > `ExternalResourceDriver`,
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
>
> I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I think
> that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because there is
> no explicit casting required.
> public interface RuntimeContext {
> Set getExternalResourceInfos(String
> resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
> }
I'm not sure how less efforts is required from users to pass in a
`externalResourceType` compared to do an explicit type casting.
A potential side effect of passing in a `externalResourceType` is that, it
requires user (e.g. the operator) to know which specific type should be
returned in advance, which may limit the flexibility.
E.g., we might have an operator that can work with multiple different
implementations of `ExternalResourceInfo`. It may decide its behavior based
on the actually type returned by `getExternalResourceInfos` at runtime.
Thank you~
Xintong Song
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:09 PM Yangze Guo wrote:
> @Till
> If we add "Class externalResourceType" param, what if there are
> multiple subtypes in the ExternalResourceInfos set of one external
> resource? It seems user has to set the T to ExternalResourceInfo and
> the mechanism is useless at this case.
>
> Best,
> Yangze Guo
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:57 PM Till Rohrmann
> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, if there can be multiple resources of the same type then we
> definitely
> > need the name as a differentiator.
> >
> > I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I think
> > that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because there is
> > no explicit casting required.
> >
> > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > Set
> getExternalResourceInfos(String
> > resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
> > }
> >
> > One minor note: I think the value of the returned map does not need to
> use
> > a bounded wildcard type because for the user it won't make a difference.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:20 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Till,
> > >
> > > > ExternalResourceDriver could return a Set > > ExternalResourceInfo>.
> > > It sounds good.
> > >
> > > > then one could make the interface type-safe by changing it to
> > > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > > Set
> > > > getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
> > > > }
> > > I think it may not help.
> > > - I think the assumption of "there is always only one resource of a
> > > specific type" is too strong. The external resource framework should
> > > only assume it gets a set of ExternalResourceInfo from the driver. The
> > > concrete implementation is given by user. So, if we give such an
> > > assumption, it would hurt the flexibility. There could be multiple
> > > types in the returned externalResourceInfo set. There could also be
> > > different types returned from different driver implementation or
> > > version. The contract about the return type between Driver and
> > > Operator should be guaranteed by user.
> > > - Since the Drivers are loaded dynamically in runtime, if there is a
> > > type mismatch, the job would fail in runtime instead of in compile
> > > time, no matter the type extraction is done by Operator or Flink core.
> > > This interface would not gain benefits for type safety.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Yangze Guo
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:38 AM Till Rohrmann
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
> > > >
> > > > If ExternalResourceInfo is a marker interface, then
> > > ExternalResourceDriver
> > > > could return a Set. This makes is a
> bit
> > > > nicer for the implementor because he can use the concrete subtype.
> > > >
> > > > If we assume that users will always cast the ExternalResourceInfo
> > > instance
> > > > into the concrete subtype and if we assume that there is always only
> one
> > > > resource of a specific type, then one could make the interface
> type-safe
> > > by
> > > > changing it to
> > > >
> > > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > > Set
> > > > getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > If we want to support multiple GPU resources, then one would need to
> use
> > > > the name of the respective resource as well.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Till
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:19 AM Xintong Song
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
> > > > > The latest FLIP looks good to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > nit: Javadoc of `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` is
> out of
> > > > > sync.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Retrieve the information of the external resources according to
> the
> > > > > > resourceProfile.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you~
> > > > >
> > > > > Xintong Song
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:04 AM Becket Qin
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Good feedback form Xintong. The latest FLIP looks good to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jiangjie
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
@Till
If we add "Class externalResourceType" param, what if there are
multiple subtypes in the ExternalResourceInfos set of one external
resource? It seems user has to set the T to ExternalResourceInfo and
the mechanism is useless at this case.
Best,
Yangze Guo
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:57 PM Till Rohrmann wrote:
>
> Ok, if there can be multiple resources of the same type then we definitely
> need the name as a differentiator.
>
> I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I think
> that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because there is
> no explicit casting required.
>
> public interface RuntimeContext {
> Set getExternalResourceInfos(String
> resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
> }
>
> One minor note: I think the value of the returned map does not need to use
> a bounded wildcard type because for the user it won't make a difference.
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:20 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
>
> > Hi Till,
> >
> > > ExternalResourceDriver could return a Set > ExternalResourceInfo>.
> > It sounds good.
> >
> > > then one could make the interface type-safe by changing it to
> > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > Set
> > > getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
> > > }
> > I think it may not help.
> > - I think the assumption of "there is always only one resource of a
> > specific type" is too strong. The external resource framework should
> > only assume it gets a set of ExternalResourceInfo from the driver. The
> > concrete implementation is given by user. So, if we give such an
> > assumption, it would hurt the flexibility. There could be multiple
> > types in the returned externalResourceInfo set. There could also be
> > different types returned from different driver implementation or
> > version. The contract about the return type between Driver and
> > Operator should be guaranteed by user.
> > - Since the Drivers are loaded dynamically in runtime, if there is a
> > type mismatch, the job would fail in runtime instead of in compile
> > time, no matter the type extraction is done by Operator or Flink core.
> > This interface would not gain benefits for type safety.
> >
> > Best,
> > Yangze Guo
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:38 AM Till Rohrmann
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
> > >
> > > If ExternalResourceInfo is a marker interface, then
> > ExternalResourceDriver
> > > could return a Set. This makes is a bit
> > > nicer for the implementor because he can use the concrete subtype.
> > >
> > > If we assume that users will always cast the ExternalResourceInfo
> > instance
> > > into the concrete subtype and if we assume that there is always only one
> > > resource of a specific type, then one could make the interface type-safe
> > by
> > > changing it to
> > >
> > > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > > Set
> > > getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
> > > }
> > >
> > > If we want to support multiple GPU resources, then one would need to use
> > > the name of the respective resource as well.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Till
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:19 AM Xintong Song
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
> > > > The latest FLIP looks good to me.
> > > >
> > > > nit: Javadoc of `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` is out of
> > > > sync.
> > > >
> > > > > Retrieve the information of the external resources according to the
> > > > > resourceProfile.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you~
> > > >
> > > > Xintong Song
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:04 AM Becket Qin
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Good feedback form Xintong. The latest FLIP looks good to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 9:20 AM Yangze Guo
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > > I've updated the FLIP accordingly. Please take a look. If you have
> > any
> > > > > > further concerns please let me know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Yangze Guo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:40 PM Yangze Guo
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback, Xintong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Should we have a factory interface for
> > `ExternalResourceDriver`,
> > > > that
> > > > > > > takes the configuration and returns a driver instance?
> > Otherwise, if
> > > > we
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > creating the driver instance with reflection, we kind of
> > implicitly
> > > > > > > requires the driver to have a public non-argument constructor.
> > If we
> > > > > > > decided to go with this approach, then we will not need
> > > > > > > `ExternalResourceDriver#open`.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > True, we could have an `ExternalResourceDriverFactory`, like
> > > > > > > interface ExternalResourceDriverFactory {
> > > > > > > ExternalResourceDriver fromConfiguration(Configuration
> > config);
> > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Ok, if there can be multiple resources of the same type then we definitely
need the name as a differentiator.
I agree that such an interface won't give compile time checks but I think
that it could be easier to use from a user's perspective because there is
no explicit casting required.
public interface RuntimeContext {
Set getExternalResourceInfos(String
resourceName, Class externalResourceType);
}
One minor note: I think the value of the returned map does not need to use
a bounded wildcard type because for the user it won't make a difference.
Cheers,
Till
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:20 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
> Hi Till,
>
> > ExternalResourceDriver could return a Set ExternalResourceInfo>.
> It sounds good.
>
> > then one could make the interface type-safe by changing it to
> > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > Set
> > getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
> > }
> I think it may not help.
> - I think the assumption of "there is always only one resource of a
> specific type" is too strong. The external resource framework should
> only assume it gets a set of ExternalResourceInfo from the driver. The
> concrete implementation is given by user. So, if we give such an
> assumption, it would hurt the flexibility. There could be multiple
> types in the returned externalResourceInfo set. There could also be
> different types returned from different driver implementation or
> version. The contract about the return type between Driver and
> Operator should be guaranteed by user.
> - Since the Drivers are loaded dynamically in runtime, if there is a
> type mismatch, the job would fail in runtime instead of in compile
> time, no matter the type extraction is done by Operator or Flink core.
> This interface would not gain benefits for type safety.
>
> Best,
> Yangze Guo
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:38 AM Till Rohrmann
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
> >
> > If ExternalResourceInfo is a marker interface, then
> ExternalResourceDriver
> > could return a Set. This makes is a bit
> > nicer for the implementor because he can use the concrete subtype.
> >
> > If we assume that users will always cast the ExternalResourceInfo
> instance
> > into the concrete subtype and if we assume that there is always only one
> > resource of a specific type, then one could make the interface type-safe
> by
> > changing it to
> >
> > public interface RuntimeContext {
> > Set
> > getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
> > }
> >
> > If we want to support multiple GPU resources, then one would need to use
> > the name of the respective resource as well.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:19 AM Xintong Song
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
> > > The latest FLIP looks good to me.
> > >
> > > nit: Javadoc of `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` is out of
> > > sync.
> > >
> > > > Retrieve the information of the external resources according to the
> > > > resourceProfile.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you~
> > >
> > > Xintong Song
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:04 AM Becket Qin
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Good feedback form Xintong. The latest FLIP looks good to me.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 9:20 AM Yangze Guo
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > I've updated the FLIP accordingly. Please take a look. If you have
> any
> > > > > further concerns please let me know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Yangze Guo
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:40 PM Yangze Guo
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the feedback, Xintong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Should we have a factory interface for
> `ExternalResourceDriver`,
> > > that
> > > > > > takes the configuration and returns a driver instance?
> Otherwise, if
> > > we
> > > > > are
> > > > > > creating the driver instance with reflection, we kind of
> implicitly
> > > > > > requires the driver to have a public non-argument constructor.
> If we
> > > > > > decided to go with this approach, then we will not need
> > > > > > `ExternalResourceDriver#open`.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > True, we could have an `ExternalResourceDriverFactory`, like
> > > > > > interface ExternalResourceDriverFactory {
> > > > > > ExternalResourceDriver fromConfiguration(Configuration
> config);
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > Regarding the configuration, the user should provide
> > > > > > "external-resource.{resourceName}.driver-factory.class" instead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Not sure about the necessity of
> `ExternalResourceDriver#close`. I
> > > > would
> > > > > > suggest to avoid introduce more interfaces if not absolutely
> > > necessary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I add `ExternalResourceDriver#close` in case user needs to clean
> up
> > > > > > internal states and any other resources. It's true that it may
> not
> > > > > > absolutely necessary for our GPUDriver. From my side, I'm
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Hi Till,
> ExternalResourceDriver could return a Set.
It sounds good.
> then one could make the interface type-safe by changing it to
> public interface RuntimeContext {
> Set
> getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
> }
I think it may not help.
- I think the assumption of "there is always only one resource of a
specific type" is too strong. The external resource framework should
only assume it gets a set of ExternalResourceInfo from the driver. The
concrete implementation is given by user. So, if we give such an
assumption, it would hurt the flexibility. There could be multiple
types in the returned externalResourceInfo set. There could also be
different types returned from different driver implementation or
version. The contract about the return type between Driver and
Operator should be guaranteed by user.
- Since the Drivers are loaded dynamically in runtime, if there is a
type mismatch, the job would fail in runtime instead of in compile
time, no matter the type extraction is done by Operator or Flink core.
This interface would not gain benefits for type safety.
Best,
Yangze Guo
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:38 AM Till Rohrmann wrote:
>
> Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
>
> If ExternalResourceInfo is a marker interface, then ExternalResourceDriver
> could return a Set. This makes is a bit
> nicer for the implementor because he can use the concrete subtype.
>
> If we assume that users will always cast the ExternalResourceInfo instance
> into the concrete subtype and if we assume that there is always only one
> resource of a specific type, then one could make the interface type-safe by
> changing it to
>
> public interface RuntimeContext {
> Set
> getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
> }
>
> If we want to support multiple GPU resources, then one would need to use
> the name of the respective resource as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Till
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:19 AM Xintong Song wrote:
>
> > Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
> > The latest FLIP looks good to me.
> >
> > nit: Javadoc of `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` is out of
> > sync.
> >
> > > Retrieve the information of the external resources according to the
> > > resourceProfile.
> >
> >
> > Thank you~
> >
> > Xintong Song
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:04 AM Becket Qin wrote:
> >
> > > Good feedback form Xintong. The latest FLIP looks good to me.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 9:20 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi there,
> > > > I've updated the FLIP accordingly. Please take a look. If you have any
> > > > further concerns please let me know.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Yangze Guo
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:40 PM Yangze Guo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the feedback, Xintong.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Should we have a factory interface for `ExternalResourceDriver`,
> > that
> > > > > takes the configuration and returns a driver instance? Otherwise, if
> > we
> > > > are
> > > > > creating the driver instance with reflection, we kind of implicitly
> > > > > requires the driver to have a public non-argument constructor. If we
> > > > > decided to go with this approach, then we will not need
> > > > > `ExternalResourceDriver#open`.
> > > > >
> > > > > True, we could have an `ExternalResourceDriverFactory`, like
> > > > > interface ExternalResourceDriverFactory {
> > > > > ExternalResourceDriver fromConfiguration(Configuration config);
> > > > > }
> > > > > Regarding the configuration, the user should provide
> > > > > "external-resource.{resourceName}.driver-factory.class" instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Not sure about the necessity of `ExternalResourceDriver#close`. I
> > > would
> > > > > suggest to avoid introduce more interfaces if not absolutely
> > necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > I add `ExternalResourceDriver#close` in case user needs to clean up
> > > > > internal states and any other resources. It's true that it may not
> > > > > absolutely necessary for our GPUDriver. From my side, I'm ok to
> > remove
> > > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > - `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` should not take
> > > > > `ResourceProfile` as argument. This exposes more information than it
> > > > needs.
> > > > > In addition, it requires the runtime/core to understand how to
> > properly
> > > > > wrap the external resource into `ResourceProfile`. E.g.,
> > > > > `ResourceProfile#extendedResources` takes `Resource`, which is an
> > > > abstract
> > > > > class. Runtime/core has to known which implementation of `Resource`
> > to
> > > > use.
> > > > >
> > > > > True, at the moment, I think the amount of the resource is enough for
> > > > > the `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo`. In the future, if
> > > > > the fine-grained external resource management is supported, the
> > amount
> > > > > of the resource seems to be enough either. If we want to leverage
> > some
> > > > > external
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
If ExternalResourceInfo is a marker interface, then ExternalResourceDriver
could return a Set. This makes is a bit
nicer for the implementor because he can use the concrete subtype.
If we assume that users will always cast the ExternalResourceInfo instance
into the concrete subtype and if we assume that there is always only one
resource of a specific type, then one could make the interface type-safe by
changing it to
public interface RuntimeContext {
Set
getExternalResourceInfo(Class externalResourceType);
}
If we want to support multiple GPU resources, then one would need to use
the name of the respective resource as well.
Cheers,
Till
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:19 AM Xintong Song wrote:
> Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
> The latest FLIP looks good to me.
>
> nit: Javadoc of `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` is out of
> sync.
>
> > Retrieve the information of the external resources according to the
> > resourceProfile.
>
>
> Thank you~
>
> Xintong Song
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:04 AM Becket Qin wrote:
>
> > Good feedback form Xintong. The latest FLIP looks good to me.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 9:20 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
> >
> > > Hi there,
> > > I've updated the FLIP accordingly. Please take a look. If you have any
> > > further concerns please let me know.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Yangze Guo
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:40 PM Yangze Guo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the feedback, Xintong.
> > > >
> > > > - Should we have a factory interface for `ExternalResourceDriver`,
> that
> > > > takes the configuration and returns a driver instance? Otherwise, if
> we
> > > are
> > > > creating the driver instance with reflection, we kind of implicitly
> > > > requires the driver to have a public non-argument constructor. If we
> > > > decided to go with this approach, then we will not need
> > > > `ExternalResourceDriver#open`.
> > > >
> > > > True, we could have an `ExternalResourceDriverFactory`, like
> > > > interface ExternalResourceDriverFactory {
> > > > ExternalResourceDriver fromConfiguration(Configuration config);
> > > > }
> > > > Regarding the configuration, the user should provide
> > > > "external-resource.{resourceName}.driver-factory.class" instead.
> > > >
> > > > - Not sure about the necessity of `ExternalResourceDriver#close`. I
> > would
> > > > suggest to avoid introduce more interfaces if not absolutely
> necessary.
> > > >
> > > > I add `ExternalResourceDriver#close` in case user needs to clean up
> > > > internal states and any other resources. It's true that it may not
> > > > absolutely necessary for our GPUDriver. From my side, I'm ok to
> remove
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > - `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` should not take
> > > > `ResourceProfile` as argument. This exposes more information than it
> > > needs.
> > > > In addition, it requires the runtime/core to understand how to
> properly
> > > > wrap the external resource into `ResourceProfile`. E.g.,
> > > > `ResourceProfile#extendedResources` takes `Resource`, which is an
> > > abstract
> > > > class. Runtime/core has to known which implementation of `Resource`
> to
> > > use.
> > > >
> > > > True, at the moment, I think the amount of the resource is enough for
> > > > the `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo`. In the future, if
> > > > the fine-grained external resource management is supported, the
> amount
> > > > of the resource seems to be enough either. If we want to leverage
> some
> > > > external resources which could not be measured by a single long
> value,
> > > > we might enrich this. But I'd like to keep it out of the scope of
> this
> > > > FLIP.
> > > >
> > > > - Do we really need `ExternalResourceInfo#getInformation`? I think it
> > > > should be good enough to make `ExternalResourceInfo` an empty
> > interface.
> > > > User can define their own `ExternalResourceInfo` implementation and
> how
> > > it
> > > > is used by the operator user codes.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Yangze Guo
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:04 PM Xintong Song
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry to pull this back. I have some concerns about the recent
> > updated
> > > > > interface details.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Should we have a factory interface for `ExternalResourceDriver`,
> > that
> > > > > takes the configuration and returns a driver instance? Otherwise,
> if
> > > we are
> > > > > creating the driver instance with reflection, we kind of implicitly
> > > > > requires the driver to have a public non-argument constructor. If
> we
> > > > > decided to go with this approach, then we will not need
> > > > > `ExternalResourceDriver#open`.
> > > > > - Not sure about the necessity of `ExternalResourceDriver#close`. I
> > > would
> > > > > suggest to avoid introduce more interfaces if not absolutely
> > necessary.
> > > > > -
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Thanks for updating the FLIP, Yangze.
The latest FLIP looks good to me.
nit: Javadoc of `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` is out of
sync.
> Retrieve the information of the external resources according to the
> resourceProfile.
Thank you~
Xintong Song
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 11:04 AM Becket Qin wrote:
> Good feedback form Xintong. The latest FLIP looks good to me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 9:20 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
>
> > Hi there,
> > I've updated the FLIP accordingly. Please take a look. If you have any
> > further concerns please let me know.
> >
> > Best,
> > Yangze Guo
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:40 PM Yangze Guo wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the feedback, Xintong.
> > >
> > > - Should we have a factory interface for `ExternalResourceDriver`, that
> > > takes the configuration and returns a driver instance? Otherwise, if we
> > are
> > > creating the driver instance with reflection, we kind of implicitly
> > > requires the driver to have a public non-argument constructor. If we
> > > decided to go with this approach, then we will not need
> > > `ExternalResourceDriver#open`.
> > >
> > > True, we could have an `ExternalResourceDriverFactory`, like
> > > interface ExternalResourceDriverFactory {
> > > ExternalResourceDriver fromConfiguration(Configuration config);
> > > }
> > > Regarding the configuration, the user should provide
> > > "external-resource.{resourceName}.driver-factory.class" instead.
> > >
> > > - Not sure about the necessity of `ExternalResourceDriver#close`. I
> would
> > > suggest to avoid introduce more interfaces if not absolutely necessary.
> > >
> > > I add `ExternalResourceDriver#close` in case user needs to clean up
> > > internal states and any other resources. It's true that it may not
> > > absolutely necessary for our GPUDriver. From my side, I'm ok to remove
> > > it.
> > >
> > > - `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` should not take
> > > `ResourceProfile` as argument. This exposes more information than it
> > needs.
> > > In addition, it requires the runtime/core to understand how to properly
> > > wrap the external resource into `ResourceProfile`. E.g.,
> > > `ResourceProfile#extendedResources` takes `Resource`, which is an
> > abstract
> > > class. Runtime/core has to known which implementation of `Resource` to
> > use.
> > >
> > > True, at the moment, I think the amount of the resource is enough for
> > > the `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo`. In the future, if
> > > the fine-grained external resource management is supported, the amount
> > > of the resource seems to be enough either. If we want to leverage some
> > > external resources which could not be measured by a single long value,
> > > we might enrich this. But I'd like to keep it out of the scope of this
> > > FLIP.
> > >
> > > - Do we really need `ExternalResourceInfo#getInformation`? I think it
> > > should be good enough to make `ExternalResourceInfo` an empty
> interface.
> > > User can define their own `ExternalResourceInfo` implementation and how
> > it
> > > is used by the operator user codes.
> > >
> > > Sounds good.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Yangze Guo
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:04 PM Xintong Song
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry to pull this back. I have some concerns about the recent
> updated
> > > > interface details.
> > > >
> > > > - Should we have a factory interface for `ExternalResourceDriver`,
> that
> > > > takes the configuration and returns a driver instance? Otherwise, if
> > we are
> > > > creating the driver instance with reflection, we kind of implicitly
> > > > requires the driver to have a public non-argument constructor. If we
> > > > decided to go with this approach, then we will not need
> > > > `ExternalResourceDriver#open`.
> > > > - Not sure about the necessity of `ExternalResourceDriver#close`. I
> > would
> > > > suggest to avoid introduce more interfaces if not absolutely
> necessary.
> > > > - `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` should not take
> > > > `ResourceProfile` as argument. This exposes more information than it
> > needs.
> > > > In addition, it requires the runtime/core to understand how to
> properly
> > > > wrap the external resource into `ResourceProfile`. E.g.,
> > > > `ResourceProfile#extendedResources` takes `Resource`, which is an
> > abstract
> > > > class. Runtime/core has to known which implementation of `Resource`
> to
> > use.
> > > > - Do we really need `ExternalResourceInfo#getInformation`? I think it
> > > > should be good enough to make `ExternalResourceInfo` an empty
> > interface.
> > > > User can define their own `ExternalResourceInfo` implementation and
> > how it
> > > > is used by the operator user codes.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you~
> > > >
> > > > Xintong Song
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM Becket Qin
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for driving this effort, Ynagze. The
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Good feedback form Xintong. The latest FLIP looks good to me.
Thanks,
Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 9:20 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
> Hi there,
> I've updated the FLIP accordingly. Please take a look. If you have any
> further concerns please let me know.
>
> Best,
> Yangze Guo
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:40 PM Yangze Guo wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback, Xintong.
> >
> > - Should we have a factory interface for `ExternalResourceDriver`, that
> > takes the configuration and returns a driver instance? Otherwise, if we
> are
> > creating the driver instance with reflection, we kind of implicitly
> > requires the driver to have a public non-argument constructor. If we
> > decided to go with this approach, then we will not need
> > `ExternalResourceDriver#open`.
> >
> > True, we could have an `ExternalResourceDriverFactory`, like
> > interface ExternalResourceDriverFactory {
> > ExternalResourceDriver fromConfiguration(Configuration config);
> > }
> > Regarding the configuration, the user should provide
> > "external-resource.{resourceName}.driver-factory.class" instead.
> >
> > - Not sure about the necessity of `ExternalResourceDriver#close`. I would
> > suggest to avoid introduce more interfaces if not absolutely necessary.
> >
> > I add `ExternalResourceDriver#close` in case user needs to clean up
> > internal states and any other resources. It's true that it may not
> > absolutely necessary for our GPUDriver. From my side, I'm ok to remove
> > it.
> >
> > - `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` should not take
> > `ResourceProfile` as argument. This exposes more information than it
> needs.
> > In addition, it requires the runtime/core to understand how to properly
> > wrap the external resource into `ResourceProfile`. E.g.,
> > `ResourceProfile#extendedResources` takes `Resource`, which is an
> abstract
> > class. Runtime/core has to known which implementation of `Resource` to
> use.
> >
> > True, at the moment, I think the amount of the resource is enough for
> > the `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo`. In the future, if
> > the fine-grained external resource management is supported, the amount
> > of the resource seems to be enough either. If we want to leverage some
> > external resources which could not be measured by a single long value,
> > we might enrich this. But I'd like to keep it out of the scope of this
> > FLIP.
> >
> > - Do we really need `ExternalResourceInfo#getInformation`? I think it
> > should be good enough to make `ExternalResourceInfo` an empty interface.
> > User can define their own `ExternalResourceInfo` implementation and how
> it
> > is used by the operator user codes.
> >
> > Sounds good.
> >
> > Best,
> > Yangze Guo
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:04 PM Xintong Song
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry to pull this back. I have some concerns about the recent updated
> > > interface details.
> > >
> > > - Should we have a factory interface for `ExternalResourceDriver`, that
> > > takes the configuration and returns a driver instance? Otherwise, if
> we are
> > > creating the driver instance with reflection, we kind of implicitly
> > > requires the driver to have a public non-argument constructor. If we
> > > decided to go with this approach, then we will not need
> > > `ExternalResourceDriver#open`.
> > > - Not sure about the necessity of `ExternalResourceDriver#close`. I
> would
> > > suggest to avoid introduce more interfaces if not absolutely necessary.
> > > - `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` should not take
> > > `ResourceProfile` as argument. This exposes more information than it
> needs.
> > > In addition, it requires the runtime/core to understand how to properly
> > > wrap the external resource into `ResourceProfile`. E.g.,
> > > `ResourceProfile#extendedResources` takes `Resource`, which is an
> abstract
> > > class. Runtime/core has to known which implementation of `Resource` to
> use.
> > > - Do we really need `ExternalResourceInfo#getInformation`? I think it
> > > should be good enough to make `ExternalResourceInfo` an empty
> interface.
> > > User can define their own `ExternalResourceInfo` implementation and
> how it
> > > is used by the operator user codes.
> > >
> > > Thank you~
> > >
> > > Xintong Song
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM Becket Qin
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for driving this effort, Ynagze. The latest FLIP wiki looks
> good to
> > > > me.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:10 PM Yangze Guo
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Edit: RuntimeContext interface
> > > > > From: Map>
> > > > > getExternalResourceInfo(ResourceSpec resourceSpec);
> > > > > To: Map>
> getExternalResourceInfo();
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Yangze Guo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:36 AM Yangze Guo
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, there
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have updated the
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Hi there,
I've updated the FLIP accordingly. Please take a look. If you have any
further concerns please let me know.
Best,
Yangze Guo
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:40 PM Yangze Guo wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback, Xintong.
>
> - Should we have a factory interface for `ExternalResourceDriver`, that
> takes the configuration and returns a driver instance? Otherwise, if we are
> creating the driver instance with reflection, we kind of implicitly
> requires the driver to have a public non-argument constructor. If we
> decided to go with this approach, then we will not need
> `ExternalResourceDriver#open`.
>
> True, we could have an `ExternalResourceDriverFactory`, like
> interface ExternalResourceDriverFactory {
> ExternalResourceDriver fromConfiguration(Configuration config);
> }
> Regarding the configuration, the user should provide
> "external-resource.{resourceName}.driver-factory.class" instead.
>
> - Not sure about the necessity of `ExternalResourceDriver#close`. I would
> suggest to avoid introduce more interfaces if not absolutely necessary.
>
> I add `ExternalResourceDriver#close` in case user needs to clean up
> internal states and any other resources. It's true that it may not
> absolutely necessary for our GPUDriver. From my side, I'm ok to remove
> it.
>
> - `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` should not take
> `ResourceProfile` as argument. This exposes more information than it needs.
> In addition, it requires the runtime/core to understand how to properly
> wrap the external resource into `ResourceProfile`. E.g.,
> `ResourceProfile#extendedResources` takes `Resource`, which is an abstract
> class. Runtime/core has to known which implementation of `Resource` to use.
>
> True, at the moment, I think the amount of the resource is enough for
> the `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo`. In the future, if
> the fine-grained external resource management is supported, the amount
> of the resource seems to be enough either. If we want to leverage some
> external resources which could not be measured by a single long value,
> we might enrich this. But I'd like to keep it out of the scope of this
> FLIP.
>
> - Do we really need `ExternalResourceInfo#getInformation`? I think it
> should be good enough to make `ExternalResourceInfo` an empty interface.
> User can define their own `ExternalResourceInfo` implementation and how it
> is used by the operator user codes.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> Best,
> Yangze Guo
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:04 PM Xintong Song wrote:
> >
> > Sorry to pull this back. I have some concerns about the recent updated
> > interface details.
> >
> > - Should we have a factory interface for `ExternalResourceDriver`, that
> > takes the configuration and returns a driver instance? Otherwise, if we are
> > creating the driver instance with reflection, we kind of implicitly
> > requires the driver to have a public non-argument constructor. If we
> > decided to go with this approach, then we will not need
> > `ExternalResourceDriver#open`.
> > - Not sure about the necessity of `ExternalResourceDriver#close`. I would
> > suggest to avoid introduce more interfaces if not absolutely necessary.
> > - `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` should not take
> > `ResourceProfile` as argument. This exposes more information than it needs.
> > In addition, it requires the runtime/core to understand how to properly
> > wrap the external resource into `ResourceProfile`. E.g.,
> > `ResourceProfile#extendedResources` takes `Resource`, which is an abstract
> > class. Runtime/core has to known which implementation of `Resource` to use.
> > - Do we really need `ExternalResourceInfo#getInformation`? I think it
> > should be good enough to make `ExternalResourceInfo` an empty interface.
> > User can define their own `ExternalResourceInfo` implementation and how it
> > is used by the operator user codes.
> >
> > Thank you~
> >
> > Xintong Song
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM Becket Qin wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Thanks for driving this effort, Ynagze. The latest FLIP wiki looks good to
> > > me.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:10 PM Yangze Guo wrote:
> > >
> > > > Edit: RuntimeContext interface
> > > > From: Map>
> > > > getExternalResourceInfo(ResourceSpec resourceSpec);
> > > > To: Map> getExternalResourceInfo();
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Yangze Guo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:36 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, there
> > > > >
> > > > > I have updated the FLIP, mainly target to make it more detailed and
> > > > > clear. The general design is not changed, but there are still some
> > > > > changes need to be notified here:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Change the `ExternalResourceDriver` from abstract class to
> > > > > interface, since it does not have an abstract implementation. Add life
> > > > > cycle method `open` and `close`.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Specify the
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Thanks for the feedback, Xintong.
- Should we have a factory interface for `ExternalResourceDriver`, that
takes the configuration and returns a driver instance? Otherwise, if we are
creating the driver instance with reflection, we kind of implicitly
requires the driver to have a public non-argument constructor. If we
decided to go with this approach, then we will not need
`ExternalResourceDriver#open`.
True, we could have an `ExternalResourceDriverFactory`, like
interface ExternalResourceDriverFactory {
ExternalResourceDriver fromConfiguration(Configuration config);
}
Regarding the configuration, the user should provide
"external-resource.{resourceName}.driver-factory.class" instead.
- Not sure about the necessity of `ExternalResourceDriver#close`. I would
suggest to avoid introduce more interfaces if not absolutely necessary.
I add `ExternalResourceDriver#close` in case user needs to clean up
internal states and any other resources. It's true that it may not
absolutely necessary for our GPUDriver. From my side, I'm ok to remove
it.
- `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` should not take
`ResourceProfile` as argument. This exposes more information than it needs.
In addition, it requires the runtime/core to understand how to properly
wrap the external resource into `ResourceProfile`. E.g.,
`ResourceProfile#extendedResources` takes `Resource`, which is an abstract
class. Runtime/core has to known which implementation of `Resource` to use.
True, at the moment, I think the amount of the resource is enough for
the `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo`. In the future, if
the fine-grained external resource management is supported, the amount
of the resource seems to be enough either. If we want to leverage some
external resources which could not be measured by a single long value,
we might enrich this. But I'd like to keep it out of the scope of this
FLIP.
- Do we really need `ExternalResourceInfo#getInformation`? I think it
should be good enough to make `ExternalResourceInfo` an empty interface.
User can define their own `ExternalResourceInfo` implementation and how it
is used by the operator user codes.
Sounds good.
Best,
Yangze Guo
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:04 PM Xintong Song wrote:
>
> Sorry to pull this back. I have some concerns about the recent updated
> interface details.
>
> - Should we have a factory interface for `ExternalResourceDriver`, that
> takes the configuration and returns a driver instance? Otherwise, if we are
> creating the driver instance with reflection, we kind of implicitly
> requires the driver to have a public non-argument constructor. If we
> decided to go with this approach, then we will not need
> `ExternalResourceDriver#open`.
> - Not sure about the necessity of `ExternalResourceDriver#close`. I would
> suggest to avoid introduce more interfaces if not absolutely necessary.
> - `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` should not take
> `ResourceProfile` as argument. This exposes more information than it needs.
> In addition, it requires the runtime/core to understand how to properly
> wrap the external resource into `ResourceProfile`. E.g.,
> `ResourceProfile#extendedResources` takes `Resource`, which is an abstract
> class. Runtime/core has to known which implementation of `Resource` to use.
> - Do we really need `ExternalResourceInfo#getInformation`? I think it
> should be good enough to make `ExternalResourceInfo` an empty interface.
> User can define their own `ExternalResourceInfo` implementation and how it
> is used by the operator user codes.
>
> Thank you~
>
> Xintong Song
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM Becket Qin wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Thanks for driving this effort, Ynagze. The latest FLIP wiki looks good to
> > me.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:10 PM Yangze Guo wrote:
> >
> > > Edit: RuntimeContext interface
> > > From: Map>
> > > getExternalResourceInfo(ResourceSpec resourceSpec);
> > > To: Map> getExternalResourceInfo();
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Yangze Guo
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:36 AM Yangze Guo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, there
> > > >
> > > > I have updated the FLIP, mainly target to make it more detailed and
> > > > clear. The general design is not changed, but there are still some
> > > > changes need to be notified here:
> > > >
> > > > - Change the `ExternalResourceDriver` from abstract class to
> > > > interface, since it does not have an abstract implementation. Add life
> > > > cycle method `open` and `close`.
> > > >
> > > > - Specify the method added to the RuntimeContext from which user get
> > > > the information of external resources.
> > > > Map>
> > > > getExternalResourceInfo(ResourceSpec resourceSpec);
> > > >
> > > > - Add "String getInformation()" method to `ExternalResourceInfo`
> > > interface.
> > > >
> > > > - Treat adding external resource info to RestAPI/WebUI as a future
> > work.
> > > >
> > > > If you have any new
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Sorry to pull this back. I have some concerns about the recent updated interface details. - Should we have a factory interface for `ExternalResourceDriver`, that takes the configuration and returns a driver instance? Otherwise, if we are creating the driver instance with reflection, we kind of implicitly requires the driver to have a public non-argument constructor. If we decided to go with this approach, then we will not need `ExternalResourceDriver#open`. - Not sure about the necessity of `ExternalResourceDriver#close`. I would suggest to avoid introduce more interfaces if not absolutely necessary. - `ExternalResourceDriver#retrieveResourceInfo` should not take `ResourceProfile` as argument. This exposes more information than it needs. In addition, it requires the runtime/core to understand how to properly wrap the external resource into `ResourceProfile`. E.g., `ResourceProfile#extendedResources` takes `Resource`, which is an abstract class. Runtime/core has to known which implementation of `Resource` to use. - Do we really need `ExternalResourceInfo#getInformation`? I think it should be good enough to make `ExternalResourceInfo` an empty interface. User can define their own `ExternalResourceInfo` implementation and how it is used by the operator user codes. Thank you~ Xintong Song On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM Becket Qin wrote: > +1 > > Thanks for driving this effort, Ynagze. The latest FLIP wiki looks good to > me. > > Cheers, > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:10 PM Yangze Guo wrote: > > > Edit: RuntimeContext interface > > From: Map> > > getExternalResourceInfo(ResourceSpec resourceSpec); > > To: Map> getExternalResourceInfo(); > > > > Best, > > Yangze Guo > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:36 AM Yangze Guo wrote: > > > > > > Hi, there > > > > > > I have updated the FLIP, mainly target to make it more detailed and > > > clear. The general design is not changed, but there are still some > > > changes need to be notified here: > > > > > > - Change the `ExternalResourceDriver` from abstract class to > > > interface, since it does not have an abstract implementation. Add life > > > cycle method `open` and `close`. > > > > > > - Specify the method added to the RuntimeContext from which user get > > > the information of external resources. > > > Map> > > > getExternalResourceInfo(ResourceSpec resourceSpec); > > > > > > - Add "String getInformation()" method to `ExternalResourceInfo` > > interface. > > > > > > - Treat adding external resource info to RestAPI/WebUI as a future > work. > > > > > > If you have any new concerns after that change, please mentioned here. > > > Sorry for disturbing you. > > > > > > Best, > > > Yangze Guo > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:55 AM Yang Wang > wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks Yangze for the efforts to support GPU extended resources. > > > > > > > > +1 for this FLIP > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Yang > > > > > > > > Till Rohrmann 于2020年4月2日周四 下午11:10写道： > > > > > > > > > Thanks for driving this effort Yangze. > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Till > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:41 PM Canbin Zheng < > felixzhen...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Yangze for driving the initial CPU support! > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Xintong Song 于2020年4月1日周三 下午6:36写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Yangze, the FLIP looks good to me. > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:22 PM Yangze Guo > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote of FLIP-108 [1], which adds GPU > > support in > > > > > > > > Flink. This FLIP is discussed in the thread[2]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Unless there is > an > > > > > > > objection, > > > > > > > > I will try to close it by April 4, 2020 10:00 UTC if we have > > received > > > > > > > > sufficient votes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-108%3A+Add+GPU+support+in+Flink > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-108-Add-GPU-support-in-Flink-td38286.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Yangze Guo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
+1 Thanks for driving this effort, Ynagze. The latest FLIP wiki looks good to me. Cheers, Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:10 PM Yangze Guo wrote: > Edit: RuntimeContext interface > From: Map> > getExternalResourceInfo(ResourceSpec resourceSpec); > To: Map> getExternalResourceInfo(); > > Best, > Yangze Guo > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:36 AM Yangze Guo wrote: > > > > Hi, there > > > > I have updated the FLIP, mainly target to make it more detailed and > > clear. The general design is not changed, but there are still some > > changes need to be notified here: > > > > - Change the `ExternalResourceDriver` from abstract class to > > interface, since it does not have an abstract implementation. Add life > > cycle method `open` and `close`. > > > > - Specify the method added to the RuntimeContext from which user get > > the information of external resources. > > Map> > > getExternalResourceInfo(ResourceSpec resourceSpec); > > > > - Add "String getInformation()" method to `ExternalResourceInfo` > interface. > > > > - Treat adding external resource info to RestAPI/WebUI as a future work. > > > > If you have any new concerns after that change, please mentioned here. > > Sorry for disturbing you. > > > > Best, > > Yangze Guo > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:55 AM Yang Wang wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Yangze for the efforts to support GPU extended resources. > > > > > > +1 for this FLIP > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > Yang > > > > > > Till Rohrmann 于2020年4月2日周四 下午11:10写道： > > > > > > > Thanks for driving this effort Yangze. > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Till > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:41 PM Canbin Zheng > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks Yangze for driving the initial CPU support! > > > > > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Xintong Song 于2020年4月1日周三 下午6:36写道： > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Yangze, the FLIP looks good to me. > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:22 PM Yangze Guo > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote of FLIP-108 [1], which adds GPU > support in > > > > > > > Flink. This FLIP is discussed in the thread[2]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Unless there is an > > > > > > objection, > > > > > > > I will try to close it by April 4, 2020 10:00 UTC if we have > received > > > > > > > sufficient votes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-108%3A+Add+GPU+support+in+Flink > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-108-Add-GPU-support-in-Flink-td38286.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Yangze Guo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Edit: RuntimeContext interface From: Map> getExternalResourceInfo(ResourceSpec resourceSpec); To: Map> getExternalResourceInfo(); Best, Yangze Guo On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:36 AM Yangze Guo wrote: > > Hi, there > > I have updated the FLIP, mainly target to make it more detailed and > clear. The general design is not changed, but there are still some > changes need to be notified here: > > - Change the `ExternalResourceDriver` from abstract class to > interface, since it does not have an abstract implementation. Add life > cycle method `open` and `close`. > > - Specify the method added to the RuntimeContext from which user get > the information of external resources. > Map> > getExternalResourceInfo(ResourceSpec resourceSpec); > > - Add "String getInformation()" method to `ExternalResourceInfo` interface. > > - Treat adding external resource info to RestAPI/WebUI as a future work. > > If you have any new concerns after that change, please mentioned here. > Sorry for disturbing you. > > Best, > Yangze Guo > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:55 AM Yang Wang wrote: > > > > Thanks Yangze for the efforts to support GPU extended resources. > > > > +1 for this FLIP > > > > > > Best, > > Yang > > > > Till Rohrmann 于2020年4月2日周四 下午11:10写道： > > > > > Thanks for driving this effort Yangze. > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Till > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:41 PM Canbin Zheng > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks Yangze for driving the initial CPU support! > > > > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > > > > > > > > > > > Xintong Song 于2020年4月1日周三 下午6:36写道： > > > > > > > > > Thanks Yangze, the FLIP looks good to me. > > > > > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:22 PM Yangze Guo wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote of FLIP-108 [1], which adds GPU support > > > > > > in > > > > > > Flink. This FLIP is discussed in the thread[2]. > > > > > > > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Unless there is an > > > > > objection, > > > > > > I will try to close it by April 4, 2020 10:00 UTC if we have > > > > > > received > > > > > > sufficient votes. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-108%3A+Add+GPU+support+in+Flink > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-108-Add-GPU-support-in-Flink-td38286.html > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Yangze Guo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Hi, there I have updated the FLIP, mainly target to make it more detailed and clear. The general design is not changed, but there are still some changes need to be notified here: - Change the `ExternalResourceDriver` from abstract class to interface, since it does not have an abstract implementation. Add life cycle method `open` and `close`. - Specify the method added to the RuntimeContext from which user get the information of external resources. Map> getExternalResourceInfo(ResourceSpec resourceSpec); - Add "String getInformation()" method to `ExternalResourceInfo` interface. - Treat adding external resource info to RestAPI/WebUI as a future work. If you have any new concerns after that change, please mentioned here. Sorry for disturbing you. Best, Yangze Guo On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:55 AM Yang Wang wrote: > > Thanks Yangze for the efforts to support GPU extended resources. > > +1 for this FLIP > > > Best, > Yang > > Till Rohrmann 于2020年4月2日周四 下午11:10写道： > > > Thanks for driving this effort Yangze. > > > > +1 > > > > Cheers, > > Till > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:41 PM Canbin Zheng > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks Yangze for driving the initial CPU support! > > > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > > > > > > > > Xintong Song 于2020年4月1日周三 下午6:36写道： > > > > > > > Thanks Yangze, the FLIP looks good to me. > > > > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:22 PM Yangze Guo wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote of FLIP-108 [1], which adds GPU support in > > > > > Flink. This FLIP is discussed in the thread[2]. > > > > > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Unless there is an > > > > objection, > > > > > I will try to close it by April 4, 2020 10:00 UTC if we have received > > > > > sufficient votes. > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-108%3A+Add+GPU+support+in+Flink > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-108-Add-GPU-support-in-Flink-td38286.html > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Yangze Guo > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Thanks Yangze for the efforts to support GPU extended resources. +1 for this FLIP Best, Yang Till Rohrmann 于2020年4月2日周四 下午11:10写道： > Thanks for driving this effort Yangze. > > +1 > > Cheers, > Till > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:41 PM Canbin Zheng > wrote: > > > Thanks Yangze for driving the initial CPU support! > > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > > > > > Xintong Song 于2020年4月1日周三 下午6:36写道： > > > > > Thanks Yangze, the FLIP looks good to me. > > > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:22 PM Yangze Guo wrote: > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote of FLIP-108 [1], which adds GPU support in > > > > Flink. This FLIP is discussed in the thread[2]. > > > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Unless there is an > > > objection, > > > > I will try to close it by April 4, 2020 10:00 UTC if we have received > > > > sufficient votes. > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-108%3A+Add+GPU+support+in+Flink > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-108-Add-GPU-support-in-Flink-td38286.html > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Yangze Guo > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Thanks for driving this effort Yangze. +1 Cheers, Till On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:41 PM Canbin Zheng wrote: > Thanks Yangze for driving the initial CPU support! > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > > Xintong Song 于2020年4月1日周三 下午6:36写道： > > > Thanks Yangze, the FLIP looks good to me. > > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > > > Thank you~ > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:22 PM Yangze Guo wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote of FLIP-108 [1], which adds GPU support in > > > Flink. This FLIP is discussed in the thread[2]. > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Unless there is an > > objection, > > > I will try to close it by April 4, 2020 10:00 UTC if we have received > > > sufficient votes. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-108%3A+Add+GPU+support+in+Flink > > > [2] > > > > > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-108-Add-GPU-support-in-Flink-td38286.html > > > > > > Best, > > > Yangze Guo > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Thanks Yangze for driving the initial CPU support! +1 (non-binding) from my side. Xintong Song 于2020年4月1日周三 下午6:36写道： > Thanks Yangze, the FLIP looks good to me. > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > Thank you~ > > Xintong Song > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:22 PM Yangze Guo wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I'd like to start the vote of FLIP-108 [1], which adds GPU support in > > Flink. This FLIP is discussed in the thread[2]. > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Unless there is an > objection, > > I will try to close it by April 4, 2020 10:00 UTC if we have received > > sufficient votes. > > > > [1] > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-108%3A+Add+GPU+support+in+Flink > > [2] > > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-108-Add-GPU-support-in-Flink-td38286.html > > > > Best, > > Yangze Guo > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Thanks Yangze, the FLIP looks good to me. +1 (non-binding) from my side. Thank you~ Xintong Song On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:22 PM Yangze Guo wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'd like to start the vote of FLIP-108 [1], which adds GPU support in > Flink. This FLIP is discussed in the thread[2]. > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Unless there is an objection, > I will try to close it by April 4, 2020 10:00 UTC if we have received > sufficient votes. > > [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-108%3A+Add+GPU+support+in+Flink > [2] > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-108-Add-GPU-support-in-Flink-td38286.html > > Best, > Yangze Guo >
[VOTE] FLIP-108: Add GPU support in Flink
Hi everyone, I'd like to start the vote of FLIP-108 [1], which adds GPU support in Flink. This FLIP is discussed in the thread[2]. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Unless there is an objection, I will try to close it by April 4, 2020 10:00 UTC if we have received sufficient votes. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-108%3A+Add+GPU+support+in+Flink [2] http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-108-Add-GPU-support-in-Flink-td38286.html Best, Yangze Guo
