tillrohrmann commented on pull request #16357:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/16357#issuecomment-880798111
Thanks a lot for the review @zentol. I've addressed your comments.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on
tillrohrmann commented on pull request #16357:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/16357#issuecomment-880693793
I've added another commit that adds the threshold functionality. Please take
a look @zentol and @pltbkd.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To
tillrohrmann commented on pull request #16357:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/16357#issuecomment-880552898
Alright, then let's go with a default of 2. I will update this PR to include
the threshold.
Maybe as a potential follow up we could think about decreasing the
tillrohrmann commented on pull request #16357:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/16357#issuecomment-879855212
I think in the first version the threshold would solely be defined for the
heartbeat rpcs (e.g. if the `HeartbeatManager` fails to send `x` heartbeat
rpcs, then mark the
tillrohrmann commented on pull request #16357:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/16357#issuecomment-877261051
Thanks for sharing your thoughts @zentol and @pltbkd. I think this is a very
important discussion to have. In general we do agree that we should try to
speed up Flink's
tillrohrmann commented on pull request #16357:
URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/16357#issuecomment-872935553
One big question is how we want to treat the unreachable signal. The problem
is that on unstable network environments where the network connection often
breaks down,
