Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
True. It would be easier for the users to understand if JM and TM have corresponding config options. Maybe we can have another FLIP addressing this afterwards. Thank you~ Xintong Song On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 11:38 PM Stephan Ewen wrote: > One thing that I just came across: Some of these options should also have a > corresponding value for the JobManager, like JVM overhead, metaspace, > direct memory. > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:34 AM Xintong Song wrote: > > > Thanks all for the votes. > > So far, we have > > > >- 4 binding +1 votes (Stephan, Andrey, Till, Zhijiang) > >- 2 un-binding +1 votes (Xintong, Yu) > >- No -1 votes > > > > There are more than 3 binding +1 votes and no -1 votes, and the voting > time > > has past. According to the new bylaws, I'm happily to announce that > FLIP-49 > > is approved to be adopted by Apache Flink. > > > > Regarding the minors mentioned during the voting, if there's no > objection, > > I would like to update the FLIP document with the followings > > > >- Exclude JVM Overhead from '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' > >- Add a 'Follow-Up' section, with the follow-ups of web ui and > >documentation issues > >- Add a 'Limitation' section, with the Unsafe Java 12 support issue > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:28 AM Xintong Song > > wrote: > > > > > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > > > > > @Yu, thanks for the vote. > > > - The current FLIP document already mentioned the issue that Unsafe is > > not > > > supported in Java 12, in the section 'Unifying Explicit and Implicit > > Memory > > > Allocation'. It makes sense to me to emphasize this by adding a > separate > > > limitation section. > > > - I think we should also update the FLIP document if we change the > config > > > names later in PRs. But I would not consider this as a major change to > > the > > > FLIP that requires another vote, especially when we already agreed > during > > > this vote to revisit the config names at implementation stage. > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 2:43 AM Yu Li wrote: > > > > > >> +1 (non-binding) > > >> > > >> Minor: > > >> 1. Is it worth a separate "Limitations" section to contain all > relative > > >> information like the Unsafe support issue in Java 12, just like many > > other > > >> FLIPs? > > >> 2. About the config names, if we change them later in PR, does it mean > > we > > >> will need to update the FLIP document? If so, it seems we need another > > >> vote > > >> after the modification according to current bylaw? Or maybe we could > > just > > >> create a subpage under the FLIP and only re-vote on that part later? > > >> > > >> Thanks. > > >> > > >> Best Regards, > > >> Yu > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 00:52, Stephan Ewen wrote: > > >> > > >> > Let's not block on config key names, just go ahead and we figure > this > > >> out > > >> > concurrently or on the PR later. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:48 PM Stephan Ewen > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Maybe to clear up confusion about my suggestion: > > >> > > > > >> > > I would vote to keep the name of the config parameter > > >> > > "taskmanager.memory.network" because it is the same key as > currently > > >> > (good > > >> > > to not break things unless good reason) and there currently is no > > >> case or > > >> > > even a concrete follow-up where we would actually differentiate > > >> between > > >> > > different types of network memory. > > >> > > > > >> > > I would suggest to not prematurely rename this because of > something > > >> that > > >> > > might happen in the future. Experience shows that its better to do > > >> these > > >> > > things when the actual change comes. > > >> > > > > >> > > Side note: I am not sure "shuffle" is a good term in this > context. I > > >> have > > >> > > so far only heard that in batch contexts, which is not what we do > > >> here. > > >> > One > > >> > > more reason for me to not pre-maturely change names. > > >> > > > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:56 AM Xintong Song < > tonysong...@gmail.com > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> @till > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory > > >> > >> represents > > >> > >> > direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will > > >> > allocate > > >> > >> > the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so > > >> that > > >> > the > > >> > >> > process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and > > no > > >> > >> native > > >> > >> > memory. Is that correct? > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> Yes, this is what I mean. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Thank you~ > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Xintong Song > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:25 PM Till Rohrmann < > trohrm...@apache.org > > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Just to clarify Xintong,
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
One thing that I just came across: Some of these options should also have a corresponding value for the JobManager, like JVM overhead, metaspace, direct memory. On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:34 AM Xintong Song wrote: > Thanks all for the votes. > So far, we have > >- 4 binding +1 votes (Stephan, Andrey, Till, Zhijiang) >- 2 un-binding +1 votes (Xintong, Yu) >- No -1 votes > > There are more than 3 binding +1 votes and no -1 votes, and the voting time > has past. According to the new bylaws, I'm happily to announce that FLIP-49 > is approved to be adopted by Apache Flink. > > Regarding the minors mentioned during the voting, if there's no objection, > I would like to update the FLIP document with the followings > >- Exclude JVM Overhead from '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' >- Add a 'Follow-Up' section, with the follow-ups of web ui and >documentation issues >- Add a 'Limitation' section, with the Unsafe Java 12 support issue > > > Thank you~ > > Xintong Song > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:28 AM Xintong Song > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > > > @Yu, thanks for the vote. > > - The current FLIP document already mentioned the issue that Unsafe is > not > > supported in Java 12, in the section 'Unifying Explicit and Implicit > Memory > > Allocation'. It makes sense to me to emphasize this by adding a separate > > limitation section. > > - I think we should also update the FLIP document if we change the config > > names later in PRs. But I would not consider this as a major change to > the > > FLIP that requires another vote, especially when we already agreed during > > this vote to revisit the config names at implementation stage. > > > > Thank you~ > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 2:43 AM Yu Li wrote: > > > >> +1 (non-binding) > >> > >> Minor: > >> 1. Is it worth a separate "Limitations" section to contain all relative > >> information like the Unsafe support issue in Java 12, just like many > other > >> FLIPs? > >> 2. About the config names, if we change them later in PR, does it mean > we > >> will need to update the FLIP document? If so, it seems we need another > >> vote > >> after the modification according to current bylaw? Or maybe we could > just > >> create a subpage under the FLIP and only re-vote on that part later? > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Yu > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 00:52, Stephan Ewen wrote: > >> > >> > Let's not block on config key names, just go ahead and we figure this > >> out > >> > concurrently or on the PR later. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:48 PM Stephan Ewen wrote: > >> > > >> > > Maybe to clear up confusion about my suggestion: > >> > > > >> > > I would vote to keep the name of the config parameter > >> > > "taskmanager.memory.network" because it is the same key as currently > >> > (good > >> > > to not break things unless good reason) and there currently is no > >> case or > >> > > even a concrete follow-up where we would actually differentiate > >> between > >> > > different types of network memory. > >> > > > >> > > I would suggest to not prematurely rename this because of something > >> that > >> > > might happen in the future. Experience shows that its better to do > >> these > >> > > things when the actual change comes. > >> > > > >> > > Side note: I am not sure "shuffle" is a good term in this context. I > >> have > >> > > so far only heard that in batch contexts, which is not what we do > >> here. > >> > One > >> > > more reason for me to not pre-maturely change names. > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:56 AM Xintong Song > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> @till > >> > >> > >> > >> > Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory > >> > >> represents > >> > >> > direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will > >> > allocate > >> > >> > the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so > >> that > >> > the > >> > >> > process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and > no > >> > >> native > >> > >> > memory. Is that correct? > >> > >> > > >> > >> Yes, this is what I mean. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Thank you~ > >> > >> > >> > >> Xintong Song > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:25 PM Till Rohrmann > > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory > >> > >> represents > >> > >> > direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will > >> > allocate > >> > >> > the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so > >> that > >> > the > >> > >> > process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and > no > >> > >> native > >> > >> > memory. Is that correct? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Cheers, > >> > >> > Till > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:18 AM Xintong Song < > >> tonysong...@gmail.com> > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > @Stephan > >> > >> > > Not
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
Thanks all for the votes. So far, we have - 4 binding +1 votes (Stephan, Andrey, Till, Zhijiang) - 2 un-binding +1 votes (Xintong, Yu) - No -1 votes There are more than 3 binding +1 votes and no -1 votes, and the voting time has past. According to the new bylaws, I'm happily to announce that FLIP-49 is approved to be adopted by Apache Flink. Regarding the minors mentioned during the voting, if there's no objection, I would like to update the FLIP document with the followings - Exclude JVM Overhead from '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' - Add a 'Follow-Up' section, with the follow-ups of web ui and documentation issues - Add a 'Limitation' section, with the Unsafe Java 12 support issue Thank you~ Xintong Song On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:28 AM Xintong Song wrote: > +1 (non-binding) from my side. > > @Yu, thanks for the vote. > - The current FLIP document already mentioned the issue that Unsafe is not > supported in Java 12, in the section 'Unifying Explicit and Implicit Memory > Allocation'. It makes sense to me to emphasize this by adding a separate > limitation section. > - I think we should also update the FLIP document if we change the config > names later in PRs. But I would not consider this as a major change to the > FLIP that requires another vote, especially when we already agreed during > this vote to revisit the config names at implementation stage. > > Thank you~ > > Xintong Song > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 2:43 AM Yu Li wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> Minor: >> 1. Is it worth a separate "Limitations" section to contain all relative >> information like the Unsafe support issue in Java 12, just like many other >> FLIPs? >> 2. About the config names, if we change them later in PR, does it mean we >> will need to update the FLIP document? If so, it seems we need another >> vote >> after the modification according to current bylaw? Or maybe we could just >> create a subpage under the FLIP and only re-vote on that part later? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Best Regards, >> Yu >> >> >> On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 00:52, Stephan Ewen wrote: >> >> > Let's not block on config key names, just go ahead and we figure this >> out >> > concurrently or on the PR later. >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:48 PM Stephan Ewen wrote: >> > >> > > Maybe to clear up confusion about my suggestion: >> > > >> > > I would vote to keep the name of the config parameter >> > > "taskmanager.memory.network" because it is the same key as currently >> > (good >> > > to not break things unless good reason) and there currently is no >> case or >> > > even a concrete follow-up where we would actually differentiate >> between >> > > different types of network memory. >> > > >> > > I would suggest to not prematurely rename this because of something >> that >> > > might happen in the future. Experience shows that its better to do >> these >> > > things when the actual change comes. >> > > >> > > Side note: I am not sure "shuffle" is a good term in this context. I >> have >> > > so far only heard that in batch contexts, which is not what we do >> here. >> > One >> > > more reason for me to not pre-maturely change names. >> > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:56 AM Xintong Song >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> @till >> > >> >> > >> > Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory >> > >> represents >> > >> > direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will >> > allocate >> > >> > the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so >> that >> > the >> > >> > process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and no >> > >> native >> > >> > memory. Is that correct? >> > >> > >> > >> Yes, this is what I mean. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Thank you~ >> > >> >> > >> Xintong Song >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:25 PM Till Rohrmann >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory >> > >> represents >> > >> > direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will >> > allocate >> > >> > the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so >> that >> > the >> > >> > process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and no >> > >> native >> > >> > memory. Is that correct? >> > >> > >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Till >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:18 AM Xintong Song < >> tonysong...@gmail.com> >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > @Stephan >> > >> > > Not sure what do you mean by "just having this value". Are you >> > >> suggesting >> > >> > > that having "taskmanager.memory.network" refers to "shuffle" and >> > >> "other >> > >> > > network memory", or only "shuffle"? >> > >> > > >> > >> > > I guess what you mean is only "shuffle"? Because currently >> > >> > > "taskmanager.network.memory" refers to shuffle buffers only, >> which >> > is >> > >> > "one >> > >> > > less config value to break". >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Thank you~ >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Xintong Song >> >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
+1 (non-binding) from my side. @Yu, thanks for the vote. - The current FLIP document already mentioned the issue that Unsafe is not supported in Java 12, in the section 'Unifying Explicit and Implicit Memory Allocation'. It makes sense to me to emphasize this by adding a separate limitation section. - I think we should also update the FLIP document if we change the config names later in PRs. But I would not consider this as a major change to the FLIP that requires another vote, especially when we already agreed during this vote to revisit the config names at implementation stage. Thank you~ Xintong Song On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 2:43 AM Yu Li wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Minor: > 1. Is it worth a separate "Limitations" section to contain all relative > information like the Unsafe support issue in Java 12, just like many other > FLIPs? > 2. About the config names, if we change them later in PR, does it mean we > will need to update the FLIP document? If so, it seems we need another vote > after the modification according to current bylaw? Or maybe we could just > create a subpage under the FLIP and only re-vote on that part later? > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Yu > > > On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 00:52, Stephan Ewen wrote: > > > Let's not block on config key names, just go ahead and we figure this out > > concurrently or on the PR later. > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:48 PM Stephan Ewen wrote: > > > > > Maybe to clear up confusion about my suggestion: > > > > > > I would vote to keep the name of the config parameter > > > "taskmanager.memory.network" because it is the same key as currently > > (good > > > to not break things unless good reason) and there currently is no case > or > > > even a concrete follow-up where we would actually differentiate between > > > different types of network memory. > > > > > > I would suggest to not prematurely rename this because of something > that > > > might happen in the future. Experience shows that its better to do > these > > > things when the actual change comes. > > > > > > Side note: I am not sure "shuffle" is a good term in this context. I > have > > > so far only heard that in batch contexts, which is not what we do here. > > One > > > more reason for me to not pre-maturely change names. > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:56 AM Xintong Song > > > wrote: > > > > > >> @till > > >> > > >> > Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory > > >> represents > > >> > direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will > > allocate > > >> > the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so that > > the > > >> > process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and no > > >> native > > >> > memory. Is that correct? > > >> > > > >> Yes, this is what I mean. > > >> > > >> > > >> Thank you~ > > >> > > >> Xintong Song > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:25 PM Till Rohrmann > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory > > >> represents > > >> > direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will > > allocate > > >> > the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so that > > the > > >> > process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and no > > >> native > > >> > memory. Is that correct? > > >> > > > >> > Cheers, > > >> > Till > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:18 AM Xintong Song > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > @Stephan > > >> > > Not sure what do you mean by "just having this value". Are you > > >> suggesting > > >> > > that having "taskmanager.memory.network" refers to "shuffle" and > > >> "other > > >> > > network memory", or only "shuffle"? > > >> > > > > >> > > I guess what you mean is only "shuffle"? Because currently > > >> > > "taskmanager.network.memory" refers to shuffle buffers only, which > > is > > >> > "one > > >> > > less config value to break". > > >> > > > > >> > > Thank you~ > > >> > > > > >> > > Xintong Song > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:42 PM Stephan Ewen > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > If we later split the network memory into "shuffle" and "other > > >> network > > >> > > > memory", I think it would make sense to split the option then. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > In that case "taskmanager.memory.network" would probably refer > to > > >> the > > >> > > total > > >> > > > network memory, which would most likely be what most users > > actually > > >> > > > configure. > > >> > > > My feeling is that for now just having this value is actually > > >> easier, > > >> > and > > >> > > > it is one less config value to break (which is also good). > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:05 AM Xintong Song < > > tonysong...@gmail.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for the voting and comments. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > @Stephan > > >> > > > > - The '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' value should not include JVM > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
+1 (non-binding) Minor: 1. Is it worth a separate "Limitations" section to contain all relative information like the Unsafe support issue in Java 12, just like many other FLIPs? 2. About the config names, if we change them later in PR, does it mean we will need to update the FLIP document? If so, it seems we need another vote after the modification according to current bylaw? Or maybe we could just create a subpage under the FLIP and only re-vote on that part later? Thanks. Best Regards, Yu On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 00:52, Stephan Ewen wrote: > Let's not block on config key names, just go ahead and we figure this out > concurrently or on the PR later. > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:48 PM Stephan Ewen wrote: > > > Maybe to clear up confusion about my suggestion: > > > > I would vote to keep the name of the config parameter > > "taskmanager.memory.network" because it is the same key as currently > (good > > to not break things unless good reason) and there currently is no case or > > even a concrete follow-up where we would actually differentiate between > > different types of network memory. > > > > I would suggest to not prematurely rename this because of something that > > might happen in the future. Experience shows that its better to do these > > things when the actual change comes. > > > > Side note: I am not sure "shuffle" is a good term in this context. I have > > so far only heard that in batch contexts, which is not what we do here. > One > > more reason for me to not pre-maturely change names. > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:56 AM Xintong Song > > wrote: > > > >> @till > >> > >> > Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory > >> represents > >> > direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will > allocate > >> > the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so that > the > >> > process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and no > >> native > >> > memory. Is that correct? > >> > > >> Yes, this is what I mean. > >> > >> > >> Thank you~ > >> > >> Xintong Song > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:25 PM Till Rohrmann > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory > >> represents > >> > direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will > allocate > >> > the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so that > the > >> > process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and no > >> native > >> > memory. Is that correct? > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > Till > >> > > >> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:18 AM Xintong Song > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > @Stephan > >> > > Not sure what do you mean by "just having this value". Are you > >> suggesting > >> > > that having "taskmanager.memory.network" refers to "shuffle" and > >> "other > >> > > network memory", or only "shuffle"? > >> > > > >> > > I guess what you mean is only "shuffle"? Because currently > >> > > "taskmanager.network.memory" refers to shuffle buffers only, which > is > >> > "one > >> > > less config value to break". > >> > > > >> > > Thank you~ > >> > > > >> > > Xintong Song > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:42 PM Stephan Ewen > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > If we later split the network memory into "shuffle" and "other > >> network > >> > > > memory", I think it would make sense to split the option then. > >> > > > > >> > > > In that case "taskmanager.memory.network" would probably refer to > >> the > >> > > total > >> > > > network memory, which would most likely be what most users > actually > >> > > > configure. > >> > > > My feeling is that for now just having this value is actually > >> easier, > >> > and > >> > > > it is one less config value to break (which is also good). > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:05 AM Xintong Song < > tonysong...@gmail.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for the voting and comments. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > @Stephan > >> > > > > - The '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' value should not include JVM > >> > Overhead. > >> > > > > Thanks for correction. > >> > > > > - 'taskmanager.memory.framework.heap' it heap memory reserved > for > >> > task > >> > > > > executor framework, which can not be allocated to task slots. I > >> think > >> > > > users > >> > > > > should be able to configure both how many total java heap > memory a > >> > task > >> > > > > executor should have and how many of the total java heap memory > >> can > >> > be > >> > > > > allocated to task slots. > >> > > > > - Regarding network / shuffle memory, I'm with @Andrey. ATM, > this > >> > > memory > >> > > > > pool (derived from > >> "taskmanager.network.memory.[min/max/fraction]") > >> > is > >> > > > only > >> > > > > used inside NettyShuffleEnvironment as network buffers. There > >> might > >> > be > >> > > > > other network memory usage outside the shuffle component (as > >> > @Zhijiang > >> > > > also > >> > > > > suggested), but that is not
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
Let's not block on config key names, just go ahead and we figure this out concurrently or on the PR later. On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:48 PM Stephan Ewen wrote: > Maybe to clear up confusion about my suggestion: > > I would vote to keep the name of the config parameter > "taskmanager.memory.network" because it is the same key as currently (good > to not break things unless good reason) and there currently is no case or > even a concrete follow-up where we would actually differentiate between > different types of network memory. > > I would suggest to not prematurely rename this because of something that > might happen in the future. Experience shows that its better to do these > things when the actual change comes. > > Side note: I am not sure "shuffle" is a good term in this context. I have > so far only heard that in batch contexts, which is not what we do here. One > more reason for me to not pre-maturely change names. > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:56 AM Xintong Song > wrote: > >> @till >> >> > Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory >> represents >> > direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will allocate >> > the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so that the >> > process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and no >> native >> > memory. Is that correct? >> > >> Yes, this is what I mean. >> >> >> Thank you~ >> >> Xintong Song >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:25 PM Till Rohrmann >> wrote: >> >> > Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory >> represents >> > direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will allocate >> > the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so that the >> > process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and no >> native >> > memory. Is that correct? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Till >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:18 AM Xintong Song >> > wrote: >> > >> > > @Stephan >> > > Not sure what do you mean by "just having this value". Are you >> suggesting >> > > that having "taskmanager.memory.network" refers to "shuffle" and >> "other >> > > network memory", or only "shuffle"? >> > > >> > > I guess what you mean is only "shuffle"? Because currently >> > > "taskmanager.network.memory" refers to shuffle buffers only, which is >> > "one >> > > less config value to break". >> > > >> > > Thank you~ >> > > >> > > Xintong Song >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:42 PM Stephan Ewen wrote: >> > > >> > > > If we later split the network memory into "shuffle" and "other >> network >> > > > memory", I think it would make sense to split the option then. >> > > > >> > > > In that case "taskmanager.memory.network" would probably refer to >> the >> > > total >> > > > network memory, which would most likely be what most users actually >> > > > configure. >> > > > My feeling is that for now just having this value is actually >> easier, >> > and >> > > > it is one less config value to break (which is also good). >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:05 AM Xintong Song >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Thanks for the voting and comments. >> > > > > >> > > > > @Stephan >> > > > > - The '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' value should not include JVM >> > Overhead. >> > > > > Thanks for correction. >> > > > > - 'taskmanager.memory.framework.heap' it heap memory reserved for >> > task >> > > > > executor framework, which can not be allocated to task slots. I >> think >> > > > users >> > > > > should be able to configure both how many total java heap memory a >> > task >> > > > > executor should have and how many of the total java heap memory >> can >> > be >> > > > > allocated to task slots. >> > > > > - Regarding network / shuffle memory, I'm with @Andrey. ATM, this >> > > memory >> > > > > pool (derived from >> "taskmanager.network.memory.[min/max/fraction]") >> > is >> > > > only >> > > > > used inside NettyShuffleEnvironment as network buffers. There >> might >> > be >> > > > > other network memory usage outside the shuffle component (as >> > @Zhijiang >> > > > also >> > > > > suggested), but that is not accounted by this memory pool. This is >> > > > exactly >> > > > > why I would suggest to change the name from 'network' to >> 'shuffle'. >> > > > > - I agree that we need very good documentation to explain the >> memory >> > > > pools >> > > > > and config options, as well as WebUI to present the memory pool >> > sizes. >> > > I >> > > > > would suggest to address these as follow-ups of all the three >> > resource >> > > > > management FLIPs, for better integration. >> > > > > >> > > > > @Andrey >> > > > > - Agree with the 'shuffle' naming. See above. >> > > > > >> > > > > @Till >> > > > > - My understanding is that Task Off-heap memory accounts for both >> > > direct >> > > > > and native memory used by the user code. I'm not sure whether we >> need >> > > > > another configure option to split it. Given that we only decided >> (in >> > > the >>
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
Maybe to clear up confusion about my suggestion: I would vote to keep the name of the config parameter "taskmanager.memory.network" because it is the same key as currently (good to not break things unless good reason) and there currently is no case or even a concrete follow-up where we would actually differentiate between different types of network memory. I would suggest to not prematurely rename this because of something that might happen in the future. Experience shows that its better to do these things when the actual change comes. Side note: I am not sure "shuffle" is a good term in this context. I have so far only heard that in batch contexts, which is not what we do here. One more reason for me to not pre-maturely change names. On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:56 AM Xintong Song wrote: > @till > > > Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory represents > > direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will allocate > > the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so that the > > process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and no native > > memory. Is that correct? > > > Yes, this is what I mean. > > > Thank you~ > > Xintong Song > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:25 PM Till Rohrmann wrote: > > > Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory represents > > direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will allocate > > the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so that the > > process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and no native > > memory. Is that correct? > > > > Cheers, > > Till > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:18 AM Xintong Song > > wrote: > > > > > @Stephan > > > Not sure what do you mean by "just having this value". Are you > suggesting > > > that having "taskmanager.memory.network" refers to "shuffle" and "other > > > network memory", or only "shuffle"? > > > > > > I guess what you mean is only "shuffle"? Because currently > > > "taskmanager.network.memory" refers to shuffle buffers only, which is > > "one > > > less config value to break". > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:42 PM Stephan Ewen wrote: > > > > > > > If we later split the network memory into "shuffle" and "other > network > > > > memory", I think it would make sense to split the option then. > > > > > > > > In that case "taskmanager.memory.network" would probably refer to the > > > total > > > > network memory, which would most likely be what most users actually > > > > configure. > > > > My feeling is that for now just having this value is actually easier, > > and > > > > it is one less config value to break (which is also good). > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:05 AM Xintong Song > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the voting and comments. > > > > > > > > > > @Stephan > > > > > - The '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' value should not include JVM > > Overhead. > > > > > Thanks for correction. > > > > > - 'taskmanager.memory.framework.heap' it heap memory reserved for > > task > > > > > executor framework, which can not be allocated to task slots. I > think > > > > users > > > > > should be able to configure both how many total java heap memory a > > task > > > > > executor should have and how many of the total java heap memory can > > be > > > > > allocated to task slots. > > > > > - Regarding network / shuffle memory, I'm with @Andrey. ATM, this > > > memory > > > > > pool (derived from "taskmanager.network.memory.[min/max/fraction]") > > is > > > > only > > > > > used inside NettyShuffleEnvironment as network buffers. There might > > be > > > > > other network memory usage outside the shuffle component (as > > @Zhijiang > > > > also > > > > > suggested), but that is not accounted by this memory pool. This is > > > > exactly > > > > > why I would suggest to change the name from 'network' to 'shuffle'. > > > > > - I agree that we need very good documentation to explain the > memory > > > > pools > > > > > and config options, as well as WebUI to present the memory pool > > sizes. > > > I > > > > > would suggest to address these as follow-ups of all the three > > resource > > > > > management FLIPs, for better integration. > > > > > > > > > > @Andrey > > > > > - Agree with the 'shuffle' naming. See above. > > > > > > > > > > @Till > > > > > - My understanding is that Task Off-heap memory accounts for both > > > direct > > > > > and native memory used by the user code. I'm not sure whether we > need > > > > > another configure option to split it. Given that we only decided > (in > > > the > > > > > discussion thread) to try it out the way we set > > > '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' > > > > > in current design and may switch to other alternatives if it > doesn't > > > work > > > > > out well, I would suggest the same for this one. I suggest that we > > > first > > > > > try it without the splitting config option, and we can easily add >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
@till > Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory represents > direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will allocate > the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so that the > process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and no native > memory. Is that correct? > Yes, this is what I mean. Thank you~ Xintong Song On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:25 PM Till Rohrmann wrote: > Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory represents > direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will allocate > the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so that the > process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and no native > memory. Is that correct? > > Cheers, > Till > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:18 AM Xintong Song > wrote: > > > @Stephan > > Not sure what do you mean by "just having this value". Are you suggesting > > that having "taskmanager.memory.network" refers to "shuffle" and "other > > network memory", or only "shuffle"? > > > > I guess what you mean is only "shuffle"? Because currently > > "taskmanager.network.memory" refers to shuffle buffers only, which is > "one > > less config value to break". > > > > Thank you~ > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:42 PM Stephan Ewen wrote: > > > > > If we later split the network memory into "shuffle" and "other network > > > memory", I think it would make sense to split the option then. > > > > > > In that case "taskmanager.memory.network" would probably refer to the > > total > > > network memory, which would most likely be what most users actually > > > configure. > > > My feeling is that for now just having this value is actually easier, > and > > > it is one less config value to break (which is also good). > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:05 AM Xintong Song > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for the voting and comments. > > > > > > > > @Stephan > > > > - The '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' value should not include JVM > Overhead. > > > > Thanks for correction. > > > > - 'taskmanager.memory.framework.heap' it heap memory reserved for > task > > > > executor framework, which can not be allocated to task slots. I think > > > users > > > > should be able to configure both how many total java heap memory a > task > > > > executor should have and how many of the total java heap memory can > be > > > > allocated to task slots. > > > > - Regarding network / shuffle memory, I'm with @Andrey. ATM, this > > memory > > > > pool (derived from "taskmanager.network.memory.[min/max/fraction]") > is > > > only > > > > used inside NettyShuffleEnvironment as network buffers. There might > be > > > > other network memory usage outside the shuffle component (as > @Zhijiang > > > also > > > > suggested), but that is not accounted by this memory pool. This is > > > exactly > > > > why I would suggest to change the name from 'network' to 'shuffle'. > > > > - I agree that we need very good documentation to explain the memory > > > pools > > > > and config options, as well as WebUI to present the memory pool > sizes. > > I > > > > would suggest to address these as follow-ups of all the three > resource > > > > management FLIPs, for better integration. > > > > > > > > @Andrey > > > > - Agree with the 'shuffle' naming. See above. > > > > > > > > @Till > > > > - My understanding is that Task Off-heap memory accounts for both > > direct > > > > and native memory used by the user code. I'm not sure whether we need > > > > another configure option to split it. Given that we only decided (in > > the > > > > discussion thread) to try it out the way we set > > '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' > > > > in current design and may switch to other alternatives if it doesn't > > work > > > > out well, I would suggest the same for this one. I suggest that we > > first > > > > try it without the splitting config option, and we can easily add it > if > > > it > > > > doesn't work well. > > > > - Agree that it's really important to have good documentation for > this. > > > See > > > > above. > > > > > > > > @Zhijiang > > > > - Thanks for the input. My understanding is that 'shuffle memory' is > a > > > > portion of the task executor memory reserved for the shuffle > component. > > > The > > > > way shuffle component use these memory (local buffer pool, netty > > internal > > > > memory, etc.) can be different depending on the shuffle > implementation. > > > The > > > > task executor (outside of the shuffle implementation) should only > know > > > the > > > > overall memory usage of the shuffle component but no need to > understand > > > > more details inside the shuffle implementation. > > > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 10:41 PM zhijiang > > > .invalid> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks for proposing this FLIP and also +1 on my side. > > > > > > > > > > @Andrey Zagrebin For the point
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
Just to clarify Xintong, you suggest that Task off-heap memory represents direct and native memory. Since we don't know how the user will allocate the memory we will add this value to -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize so that the process won't fail if the user allocates only direct memory and no native memory. Is that correct? Cheers, Till On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:18 AM Xintong Song wrote: > @Stephan > Not sure what do you mean by "just having this value". Are you suggesting > that having "taskmanager.memory.network" refers to "shuffle" and "other > network memory", or only "shuffle"? > > I guess what you mean is only "shuffle"? Because currently > "taskmanager.network.memory" refers to shuffle buffers only, which is "one > less config value to break". > > Thank you~ > > Xintong Song > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:42 PM Stephan Ewen wrote: > > > If we later split the network memory into "shuffle" and "other network > > memory", I think it would make sense to split the option then. > > > > In that case "taskmanager.memory.network" would probably refer to the > total > > network memory, which would most likely be what most users actually > > configure. > > My feeling is that for now just having this value is actually easier, and > > it is one less config value to break (which is also good). > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:05 AM Xintong Song > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the voting and comments. > > > > > > @Stephan > > > - The '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' value should not include JVM Overhead. > > > Thanks for correction. > > > - 'taskmanager.memory.framework.heap' it heap memory reserved for task > > > executor framework, which can not be allocated to task slots. I think > > users > > > should be able to configure both how many total java heap memory a task > > > executor should have and how many of the total java heap memory can be > > > allocated to task slots. > > > - Regarding network / shuffle memory, I'm with @Andrey. ATM, this > memory > > > pool (derived from "taskmanager.network.memory.[min/max/fraction]") is > > only > > > used inside NettyShuffleEnvironment as network buffers. There might be > > > other network memory usage outside the shuffle component (as @Zhijiang > > also > > > suggested), but that is not accounted by this memory pool. This is > > exactly > > > why I would suggest to change the name from 'network' to 'shuffle'. > > > - I agree that we need very good documentation to explain the memory > > pools > > > and config options, as well as WebUI to present the memory pool sizes. > I > > > would suggest to address these as follow-ups of all the three resource > > > management FLIPs, for better integration. > > > > > > @Andrey > > > - Agree with the 'shuffle' naming. See above. > > > > > > @Till > > > - My understanding is that Task Off-heap memory accounts for both > direct > > > and native memory used by the user code. I'm not sure whether we need > > > another configure option to split it. Given that we only decided (in > the > > > discussion thread) to try it out the way we set > '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' > > > in current design and may switch to other alternatives if it doesn't > work > > > out well, I would suggest the same for this one. I suggest that we > first > > > try it without the splitting config option, and we can easily add it if > > it > > > doesn't work well. > > > - Agree that it's really important to have good documentation for this. > > See > > > above. > > > > > > @Zhijiang > > > - Thanks for the input. My understanding is that 'shuffle memory' is a > > > portion of the task executor memory reserved for the shuffle component. > > The > > > way shuffle component use these memory (local buffer pool, netty > internal > > > memory, etc.) can be different depending on the shuffle implementation. > > The > > > task executor (outside of the shuffle implementation) should only know > > the > > > overall memory usage of the shuffle component but no need to understand > > > more details inside the shuffle implementation. > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 10:41 PM zhijiang > > .invalid> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for proposing this FLIP and also +1 on my side. > > > > > > > > @Andrey Zagrebin For the point of "network memory is actually used > more > > > > than shuffling", I guess that the component of queryable state is > also > > > > using network/netty stack atm, which is outside of shuffling. > > > > In addition, if we only consider the shuffle memory provided by > shuffle > > > > service interface, we should not only consider the memory used by > local > > > > buffer pool, but also consider the netty internal memory > > > > usages as the overhead, especially we have not the zero-copy > > improvement > > > > on dowstream read side. This issue might be out of the vote scope, > just > > > > think of we have this issue in [1]. :) > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-12110 > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
@Zhijiang @Stephan I agree with @Xintong for the scope of the shuffle memory. but as @Zhijinag pointed out it is not easy to estimate real netty shuffle memory consumption due to the overhead. Everything that is pretty much O(1) comparing to the shuffle buffer size can be accommodated in the general framework/task memory. Depending on how big netty shuffle overhead (not buffers), we can either make netty shuffle include it into shuffle memory or treat it as a part of the general framework/task memory. I do not see that we use the current network memory option in KV state server atm and size-wise it can probably belong to the general framework/task memory. @Xintong @Till In general, user might want to use both direct and native memory in Tasks. Then naturally Task Off-heap memory is sum of them. I guess the problem is that if user needs non-zero native memory then it is expected that direct memory limit is less than the total Task Off-heap memory. If we just say that -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize includes all Task Off-heap memory, the provided limit for the direct memory is technically bigger than the real need. I think it will be cleaner to separate task direct and native memory but then I agree with Till that the default values/documentation/examples should be very clear for users. Thanks, Andrey On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:18 AM Xintong Song wrote: > @Stephan > Not sure what do you mean by "just having this value". Are you suggesting > that having "taskmanager.memory.network" refers to "shuffle" and "other > network memory", or only "shuffle"? > > I guess what you mean is only "shuffle"? Because currently > "taskmanager.network.memory" refers to shuffle buffers only, which is "one > less config value to break". > > Thank you~ > > Xintong Song > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:42 PM Stephan Ewen wrote: > > > If we later split the network memory into "shuffle" and "other network > > memory", I think it would make sense to split the option then. > > > > In that case "taskmanager.memory.network" would probably refer to the > total > > network memory, which would most likely be what most users actually > > configure. > > My feeling is that for now just having this value is actually easier, and > > it is one less config value to break (which is also good). > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:05 AM Xintong Song > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the voting and comments. > > > > > > @Stephan > > > - The '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' value should not include JVM Overhead. > > > Thanks for correction. > > > - 'taskmanager.memory.framework.heap' it heap memory reserved for task > > > executor framework, which can not be allocated to task slots. I think > > users > > > should be able to configure both how many total java heap memory a task > > > executor should have and how many of the total java heap memory can be > > > allocated to task slots. > > > - Regarding network / shuffle memory, I'm with @Andrey. ATM, this > memory > > > pool (derived from "taskmanager.network.memory.[min/max/fraction]") is > > only > > > used inside NettyShuffleEnvironment as network buffers. There might be > > > other network memory usage outside the shuffle component (as @Zhijiang > > also > > > suggested), but that is not accounted by this memory pool. This is > > exactly > > > why I would suggest to change the name from 'network' to 'shuffle'. > > > - I agree that we need very good documentation to explain the memory > > pools > > > and config options, as well as WebUI to present the memory pool sizes. > I > > > would suggest to address these as follow-ups of all the three resource > > > management FLIPs, for better integration. > > > > > > @Andrey > > > - Agree with the 'shuffle' naming. See above. > > > > > > @Till > > > - My understanding is that Task Off-heap memory accounts for both > direct > > > and native memory used by the user code. I'm not sure whether we need > > > another configure option to split it. Given that we only decided (in > the > > > discussion thread) to try it out the way we set > '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' > > > in current design and may switch to other alternatives if it doesn't > work > > > out well, I would suggest the same for this one. I suggest that we > first > > > try it without the splitting config option, and we can easily add it if > > it > > > doesn't work well. > > > - Agree that it's really important to have good documentation for this. > > See > > > above. > > > > > > @Zhijiang > > > - Thanks for the input. My understanding is that 'shuffle memory' is a > > > portion of the task executor memory reserved for the shuffle component. > > The > > > way shuffle component use these memory (local buffer pool, netty > internal > > > memory, etc.) can be different depending on the shuffle implementation. > > The > > > task executor (outside of the shuffle implementation) should only know > > the > > > overall memory usage of the shuffle component but no need to understand > > > more details inside the shuffle
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
@Stephan Not sure what do you mean by "just having this value". Are you suggesting that having "taskmanager.memory.network" refers to "shuffle" and "other network memory", or only "shuffle"? I guess what you mean is only "shuffle"? Because currently "taskmanager.network.memory" refers to shuffle buffers only, which is "one less config value to break". Thank you~ Xintong Song On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:42 PM Stephan Ewen wrote: > If we later split the network memory into "shuffle" and "other network > memory", I think it would make sense to split the option then. > > In that case "taskmanager.memory.network" would probably refer to the total > network memory, which would most likely be what most users actually > configure. > My feeling is that for now just having this value is actually easier, and > it is one less config value to break (which is also good). > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:05 AM Xintong Song wrote: > > > Thanks for the voting and comments. > > > > @Stephan > > - The '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' value should not include JVM Overhead. > > Thanks for correction. > > - 'taskmanager.memory.framework.heap' it heap memory reserved for task > > executor framework, which can not be allocated to task slots. I think > users > > should be able to configure both how many total java heap memory a task > > executor should have and how many of the total java heap memory can be > > allocated to task slots. > > - Regarding network / shuffle memory, I'm with @Andrey. ATM, this memory > > pool (derived from "taskmanager.network.memory.[min/max/fraction]") is > only > > used inside NettyShuffleEnvironment as network buffers. There might be > > other network memory usage outside the shuffle component (as @Zhijiang > also > > suggested), but that is not accounted by this memory pool. This is > exactly > > why I would suggest to change the name from 'network' to 'shuffle'. > > - I agree that we need very good documentation to explain the memory > pools > > and config options, as well as WebUI to present the memory pool sizes. I > > would suggest to address these as follow-ups of all the three resource > > management FLIPs, for better integration. > > > > @Andrey > > - Agree with the 'shuffle' naming. See above. > > > > @Till > > - My understanding is that Task Off-heap memory accounts for both direct > > and native memory used by the user code. I'm not sure whether we need > > another configure option to split it. Given that we only decided (in the > > discussion thread) to try it out the way we set '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' > > in current design and may switch to other alternatives if it doesn't work > > out well, I would suggest the same for this one. I suggest that we first > > try it without the splitting config option, and we can easily add it if > it > > doesn't work well. > > - Agree that it's really important to have good documentation for this. > See > > above. > > > > @Zhijiang > > - Thanks for the input. My understanding is that 'shuffle memory' is a > > portion of the task executor memory reserved for the shuffle component. > The > > way shuffle component use these memory (local buffer pool, netty internal > > memory, etc.) can be different depending on the shuffle implementation. > The > > task executor (outside of the shuffle implementation) should only know > the > > overall memory usage of the shuffle component but no need to understand > > more details inside the shuffle implementation. > > > > Thank you~ > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 10:41 PM zhijiang > .invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for proposing this FLIP and also +1 on my side. > > > > > > @Andrey Zagrebin For the point of "network memory is actually used more > > > than shuffling", I guess that the component of queryable state is also > > > using network/netty stack atm, which is outside of shuffling. > > > In addition, if we only consider the shuffle memory provided by shuffle > > > service interface, we should not only consider the memory used by local > > > buffer pool, but also consider the netty internal memory > > > usages as the overhead, especially we have not the zero-copy > improvement > > > on dowstream read side. This issue might be out of the vote scope, just > > > think of we have this issue in [1]. :) > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-12110 > > > > > > Best, > > > Zhijiang > > > -- > > > From:Till Rohrmann > > > Send Time:2019年9月3日(星期二) 15:07 > > > To:dev > > > Subject:Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for > > TaskExecutors > > > > > > Thanks for creating this FLIP and starting the vote Xintong. > > > > > > +1 for the proposal from my side. > > > > > > I agree with Stephan that we might wanna revisit some of the > > configuration > > > names. > > > > > > If I understood it correctly, then Task Off-heap memory represents the > > > direct memory used by the user code, right? How would
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
If we later split the network memory into "shuffle" and "other network memory", I think it would make sense to split the option then. In that case "taskmanager.memory.network" would probably refer to the total network memory, which would most likely be what most users actually configure. My feeling is that for now just having this value is actually easier, and it is one less config value to break (which is also good). On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:05 AM Xintong Song wrote: > Thanks for the voting and comments. > > @Stephan > - The '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' value should not include JVM Overhead. > Thanks for correction. > - 'taskmanager.memory.framework.heap' it heap memory reserved for task > executor framework, which can not be allocated to task slots. I think users > should be able to configure both how many total java heap memory a task > executor should have and how many of the total java heap memory can be > allocated to task slots. > - Regarding network / shuffle memory, I'm with @Andrey. ATM, this memory > pool (derived from "taskmanager.network.memory.[min/max/fraction]") is only > used inside NettyShuffleEnvironment as network buffers. There might be > other network memory usage outside the shuffle component (as @Zhijiang also > suggested), but that is not accounted by this memory pool. This is exactly > why I would suggest to change the name from 'network' to 'shuffle'. > - I agree that we need very good documentation to explain the memory pools > and config options, as well as WebUI to present the memory pool sizes. I > would suggest to address these as follow-ups of all the three resource > management FLIPs, for better integration. > > @Andrey > - Agree with the 'shuffle' naming. See above. > > @Till > - My understanding is that Task Off-heap memory accounts for both direct > and native memory used by the user code. I'm not sure whether we need > another configure option to split it. Given that we only decided (in the > discussion thread) to try it out the way we set '-XX:MaxDirectMemorySize' > in current design and may switch to other alternatives if it doesn't work > out well, I would suggest the same for this one. I suggest that we first > try it without the splitting config option, and we can easily add it if it > doesn't work well. > - Agree that it's really important to have good documentation for this. See > above. > > @Zhijiang > - Thanks for the input. My understanding is that 'shuffle memory' is a > portion of the task executor memory reserved for the shuffle component. The > way shuffle component use these memory (local buffer pool, netty internal > memory, etc.) can be different depending on the shuffle implementation. The > task executor (outside of the shuffle implementation) should only know the > overall memory usage of the shuffle component but no need to understand > more details inside the shuffle implementation. > > Thank you~ > > Xintong Song > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 10:41 PM zhijiang .invalid> > wrote: > > > Thanks for proposing this FLIP and also +1 on my side. > > > > @Andrey Zagrebin For the point of "network memory is actually used more > > than shuffling", I guess that the component of queryable state is also > > using network/netty stack atm, which is outside of shuffling. > > In addition, if we only consider the shuffle memory provided by shuffle > > service interface, we should not only consider the memory used by local > > buffer pool, but also consider the netty internal memory > > usages as the overhead, especially we have not the zero-copy improvement > > on dowstream read side. This issue might be out of the vote scope, just > > think of we have this issue in [1]. :) > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-12110 > > > > Best, > > Zhijiang > > -- > > From:Till Rohrmann > > Send Time:2019年9月3日(星期二) 15:07 > > To:dev > > Subject:Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for > TaskExecutors > > > > Thanks for creating this FLIP and starting the vote Xintong. > > > > +1 for the proposal from my side. > > > > I agree with Stephan that we might wanna revisit some of the > configuration > > names. > > > > If I understood it correctly, then Task Off-heap memory represents the > > direct memory used by the user code, right? How would users configure > > native memory requirements for the user code? If it is part of Task Off > > heap memory, then we need to split it to set -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize > > correctly or to introduce another configuration option. > > > > Given all these configuration options, I can see that users will get > > confused quite easily. Therefore, I would like to emphasise that we need > a > > very good documentation about how to properly configure Flink processes > and > > which knobs to turn in which cases. > > > > Cheers, > > Till > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 2:34 PM Andrey Zagrebin > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for starting the vote Xintong > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
Thanks for creating this FLIP and starting the vote Xintong. +1 for the proposal from my side. I agree with Stephan that we might wanna revisit some of the configuration names. If I understood it correctly, then Task Off-heap memory represents the direct memory used by the user code, right? How would users configure native memory requirements for the user code? If it is part of Task Off heap memory, then we need to split it to set -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize correctly or to introduce another configuration option. Given all these configuration options, I can see that users will get confused quite easily. Therefore, I would like to emphasise that we need a very good documentation about how to properly configure Flink processes and which knobs to turn in which cases. Cheers, Till On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 2:34 PM Andrey Zagrebin wrote: > Thanks for starting the vote Xintong > > Also +1 for the proposed FLIP-49. > > @Stephan regarding namings: network vs shuffle. > My understanding so far was that the network memory is what we basically > give to Shuffle implementations and default netty implementation uses it in > particular mostly for networking. > Are the network pools used for something else outside of the shuffling > scope? > > best, > Andrey > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 1:01 PM Stephan Ewen wrote: > > > +1 to the proposal in general > > > > A few things seems to be a bit put of sync with the latest discussions > > though. > > > > The section about JVM Parameters states that the > > -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize value is set to Task Off-heap Memory, Shuffle > > Memory and JVM Overhead. > > The way I understand the last discussion conclusion is that it is only > the > > sum of shuffle memory and user-defined direct memory. > > > > I am someone neutral but unsure about is the separation between > > "taskmanager.memory.framework.heap" and "taskmanager.memory.task.heap". > > Could that be simply combined under "taskmanager.memory.javaheap"? > > > > It might be good to also expose these values somehow in the web UI so > that > > users see immediately what amount of memory TMs assume to use for what. > > > > I assume config key names and default values might be adjusted over time > as > > we get feedback. > > - I would keep the network memory under the name > > "taskmanager.memory.network". Because network memory is actually used for > > more than shuffling. Also, the old config key seems good, so why change > it? > > > > One thing to be aware of is that often, the Java Heap is understood as > > "managed memory" as a whole, because it is managed by the GC not > explicitly > > by the user. > > So we need to make sure that we don't confuse users by speaking of > managed > > heap and unmanaged heap. All heap is managed in Java. Some memory is > > explicitly managed by Flink. > > > > Best, > > Stephan > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 3:08 PM Xintong Song > wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > I'm here to re-start the voting process for FLIP-49 [1], with respect > to > > > consensus reached in this thread [2] regarding some new comments and > > > concerns. > > > > > > This voting will be open for at least 72 hours. I'll try to close it > Sep. > > > 5, 14:00 UTC, unless there is an objection or not enough votes. > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-49%3A+Unified+Memory+Configuration+for+TaskExecutors > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-49-Unified-Memory-Configuration-for-TaskExecutors-td31436.html > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 9:29 PM Xintong Song > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Alright, then let's keep the discussion in the DISCUSS mailing > thread, > > > and > > > > see whether we need to restart the vote. > > > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:12 PM Till Rohrmann > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> I had a couple of comments concerning the implementation plan. I've > > > posted > > > >> them to the original discussion thread. Depending on the outcome of > > this > > > >> discussion we might need to restart the vote. > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> Till > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:14 AM Xintong Song < > tonysong...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Hi all, > > > >> > > > > >> > I would like to start the voting process for FLIP-49 [1], which is > > > >> > discussed and reached consensus in this thread [2]. > > > >> > > > > >> > This voting will be open for at least 72 hours. I'll try to close > it > > > >> Aug. > > > >> > 30 10:00 UTC, unless there is an objection or not enough votes. > > > >> > > > > >> > Thank you~ > > > >> > > > > >> > Xintong Song > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > [1] > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-49%3A+Unified+Memory+Configuration+for+TaskExecutors
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
Thanks for starting the vote Xintong Also +1 for the proposed FLIP-49. @Stephan regarding namings: network vs shuffle. My understanding so far was that the network memory is what we basically give to Shuffle implementations and default netty implementation uses it in particular mostly for networking. Are the network pools used for something else outside of the shuffling scope? best, Andrey On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 1:01 PM Stephan Ewen wrote: > +1 to the proposal in general > > A few things seems to be a bit put of sync with the latest discussions > though. > > The section about JVM Parameters states that the > -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize value is set to Task Off-heap Memory, Shuffle > Memory and JVM Overhead. > The way I understand the last discussion conclusion is that it is only the > sum of shuffle memory and user-defined direct memory. > > I am someone neutral but unsure about is the separation between > "taskmanager.memory.framework.heap" and "taskmanager.memory.task.heap". > Could that be simply combined under "taskmanager.memory.javaheap"? > > It might be good to also expose these values somehow in the web UI so that > users see immediately what amount of memory TMs assume to use for what. > > I assume config key names and default values might be adjusted over time as > we get feedback. > - I would keep the network memory under the name > "taskmanager.memory.network". Because network memory is actually used for > more than shuffling. Also, the old config key seems good, so why change it? > > One thing to be aware of is that often, the Java Heap is understood as > "managed memory" as a whole, because it is managed by the GC not explicitly > by the user. > So we need to make sure that we don't confuse users by speaking of managed > heap and unmanaged heap. All heap is managed in Java. Some memory is > explicitly managed by Flink. > > Best, > Stephan > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 3:08 PM Xintong Song wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I'm here to re-start the voting process for FLIP-49 [1], with respect to > > consensus reached in this thread [2] regarding some new comments and > > concerns. > > > > This voting will be open for at least 72 hours. I'll try to close it Sep. > > 5, 14:00 UTC, unless there is an objection or not enough votes. > > > > Thank you~ > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > [1] > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-49%3A+Unified+Memory+Configuration+for+TaskExecutors > > [2] > > > > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-49-Unified-Memory-Configuration-for-TaskExecutors-td31436.html > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 9:29 PM Xintong Song > > wrote: > > > > > Alright, then let's keep the discussion in the DISCUSS mailing thread, > > and > > > see whether we need to restart the vote. > > > > > > Thank you~ > > > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:12 PM Till Rohrmann > > > wrote: > > > > > >> I had a couple of comments concerning the implementation plan. I've > > posted > > >> them to the original discussion thread. Depending on the outcome of > this > > >> discussion we might need to restart the vote. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Till > > >> > > >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:14 AM Xintong Song > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi all, > > >> > > > >> > I would like to start the voting process for FLIP-49 [1], which is > > >> > discussed and reached consensus in this thread [2]. > > >> > > > >> > This voting will be open for at least 72 hours. I'll try to close it > > >> Aug. > > >> > 30 10:00 UTC, unless there is an objection or not enough votes. > > >> > > > >> > Thank you~ > > >> > > > >> > Xintong Song > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > [1] > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-49%3A+Unified+Memory+Configuration+for+TaskExecutors > > >> > [2] > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-49-Unified-Memory-Configuration-for-TaskExecutors-td31436.html > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
+1 to the proposal in general A few things seems to be a bit put of sync with the latest discussions though. The section about JVM Parameters states that the -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize value is set to Task Off-heap Memory, Shuffle Memory and JVM Overhead. The way I understand the last discussion conclusion is that it is only the sum of shuffle memory and user-defined direct memory. I am someone neutral but unsure about is the separation between "taskmanager.memory.framework.heap" and "taskmanager.memory.task.heap". Could that be simply combined under "taskmanager.memory.javaheap"? It might be good to also expose these values somehow in the web UI so that users see immediately what amount of memory TMs assume to use for what. I assume config key names and default values might be adjusted over time as we get feedback. - I would keep the network memory under the name "taskmanager.memory.network". Because network memory is actually used for more than shuffling. Also, the old config key seems good, so why change it? One thing to be aware of is that often, the Java Heap is understood as "managed memory" as a whole, because it is managed by the GC not explicitly by the user. So we need to make sure that we don't confuse users by speaking of managed heap and unmanaged heap. All heap is managed in Java. Some memory is explicitly managed by Flink. Best, Stephan On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 3:08 PM Xintong Song wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'm here to re-start the voting process for FLIP-49 [1], with respect to > consensus reached in this thread [2] regarding some new comments and > concerns. > > This voting will be open for at least 72 hours. I'll try to close it Sep. > 5, 14:00 UTC, unless there is an objection or not enough votes. > > Thank you~ > > Xintong Song > > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-49%3A+Unified+Memory+Configuration+for+TaskExecutors > [2] > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-49-Unified-Memory-Configuration-for-TaskExecutors-td31436.html > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 9:29 PM Xintong Song > wrote: > > > Alright, then let's keep the discussion in the DISCUSS mailing thread, > and > > see whether we need to restart the vote. > > > > Thank you~ > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:12 PM Till Rohrmann > > wrote: > > > >> I had a couple of comments concerning the implementation plan. I've > posted > >> them to the original discussion thread. Depending on the outcome of this > >> discussion we might need to restart the vote. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Till > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:14 AM Xintong Song > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi all, > >> > > >> > I would like to start the voting process for FLIP-49 [1], which is > >> > discussed and reached consensus in this thread [2]. > >> > > >> > This voting will be open for at least 72 hours. I'll try to close it > >> Aug. > >> > 30 10:00 UTC, unless there is an objection or not enough votes. > >> > > >> > Thank you~ > >> > > >> > Xintong Song > >> > > >> > > >> > [1] > >> > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-49%3A+Unified+Memory+Configuration+for+TaskExecutors > >> > [2] > >> > > >> > > >> > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-49-Unified-Memory-Configuration-for-TaskExecutors-td31436.html > >> > > >> > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
Hi everyone, I'm here to re-start the voting process for FLIP-49 [1], with respect to consensus reached in this thread [2] regarding some new comments and concerns. This voting will be open for at least 72 hours. I'll try to close it Sep. 5, 14:00 UTC, unless there is an objection or not enough votes. Thank you~ Xintong Song [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-49%3A+Unified+Memory+Configuration+for+TaskExecutors [2] http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-49-Unified-Memory-Configuration-for-TaskExecutors-td31436.html On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 9:29 PM Xintong Song wrote: > Alright, then let's keep the discussion in the DISCUSS mailing thread, and > see whether we need to restart the vote. > > Thank you~ > > Xintong Song > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:12 PM Till Rohrmann > wrote: > >> I had a couple of comments concerning the implementation plan. I've posted >> them to the original discussion thread. Depending on the outcome of this >> discussion we might need to restart the vote. >> >> Cheers, >> Till >> >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:14 AM Xintong Song >> wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I would like to start the voting process for FLIP-49 [1], which is >> > discussed and reached consensus in this thread [2]. >> > >> > This voting will be open for at least 72 hours. I'll try to close it >> Aug. >> > 30 10:00 UTC, unless there is an objection or not enough votes. >> > >> > Thank you~ >> > >> > Xintong Song >> > >> > >> > [1] >> > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-49%3A+Unified+Memory+Configuration+for+TaskExecutors >> > [2] >> > >> > >> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-49-Unified-Memory-Configuration-for-TaskExecutors-td31436.html >> > >> >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
Alright, then let's keep the discussion in the DISCUSS mailing thread, and see whether we need to restart the vote. Thank you~ Xintong Song On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 8:12 PM Till Rohrmann wrote: > I had a couple of comments concerning the implementation plan. I've posted > them to the original discussion thread. Depending on the outcome of this > discussion we might need to restart the vote. > > Cheers, > Till > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:14 AM Xintong Song > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to start the voting process for FLIP-49 [1], which is > > discussed and reached consensus in this thread [2]. > > > > This voting will be open for at least 72 hours. I'll try to close it Aug. > > 30 10:00 UTC, unless there is an objection or not enough votes. > > > > Thank you~ > > > > Xintong Song > > > > > > [1] > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-49%3A+Unified+Memory+Configuration+for+TaskExecutors > > [2] > > > > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-49-Unified-Memory-Configuration-for-TaskExecutors-td31436.html > > >
Re: [VOTE] FLIP-49: Unified Memory Configuration for TaskExecutors
I had a couple of comments concerning the implementation plan. I've posted them to the original discussion thread. Depending on the outcome of this discussion we might need to restart the vote. Cheers, Till On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:14 AM Xintong Song wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to start the voting process for FLIP-49 [1], which is > discussed and reached consensus in this thread [2]. > > This voting will be open for at least 72 hours. I'll try to close it Aug. > 30 10:00 UTC, unless there is an objection or not enough votes. > > Thank you~ > > Xintong Song > > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-49%3A+Unified+Memory+Configuration+for+TaskExecutors > [2] > > http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-FLIP-49-Unified-Memory-Configuration-for-TaskExecutors-td31436.html >
