Thanks Matthias & Stephan!

Yes, if we choose to fail checkpoint on expiry, we can restore from
previous checkpoint.

Looking forward to read the new design proposal.

Srikanth


On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Srikanth!
>
> That is an interesting idea.
> I have it on my mind to create a design doc for checkpointing
> improvements. That could be added as a proposal there.
>
> I hope I'll be able to start with that design doc next week.
>
> Greetings,
> Stephan
>
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't think barries can "expire" as of now. Might be a nice idea
>> thought -- I don't know if this might be a problem in production.
>>
>> Furthermore, I want to point out, that an "expiring checkpoint" would
>> not break exactly-once processing, as the latest successful checkpoint
>> can always be used to recover correctly. Only the recovery-time would be
>> increase. because if a "barrier expires" and no checkpoint can be
>> stored, more data has to be replayed using the "old" checkpoint".
>>
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>> On 05/12/2016 09:21 PM, Srikanth wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I was reading about Flink's checkpoint and wanted to check if I
>> > correctly understood the usage of barriers for exactly once processing.
>> >  1) Operator does alignment by buffering records coming after a barrier
>> > until it receives barrier from all upstream operators instances.
>> >  2) Barrier is always preceded by a watermark to trigger processing all
>> > windows that are complete.
>> >  3) Records in windows that are not triggered are also saved as part of
>> > checkpoint. These windows are repopulated when restoring from
>> checkpoints.
>> >
>> > In production setups, were there any cases where alignment during
>> > checkpointing caused unacceptable latency?
>> > If so, is there a way to indicate say wait for a MAX 100 ms? That way we
>> > have exactly-once in most situations but prefer at least once over
>> > higher latency in corner cases.
>> >
>> > Srikanth
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to