Thanks very much for you rapid answer Stefan. Regards, Edward
El mié., 9 ene. 2019 a las 15:26, Stefan Richter (<s.rich...@da-platform.com>) escribió: > Hi, > > I would assume that this should currently work because the format of basic > savepoints and checkpoints is the same right now. The restriction in the > doc is probably there in case that the checkpoint format will diverge more > in the future. > > Best, > Stefan > > > On 9. Jan 2019, at 13:12, Edward Rojas <edward.roja...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > For upgrading jobs between Flink versions I follow the guide in the doc > > here: > > > https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-release-1.7/ops/upgrading.html#upgrading-the-flink-framework-version > > > > It states that we should always use savepoints for this procedure, I > > followed it and it works perfectly. > > > > I just would like to know if there is a reason why is not advised to use > > checkpoints for this procedure. > > > > Say for example that the job has externalized checkpoints with > > RETAIN_ON_CANCELLATION policy, one could cancel the job before the > upgrade > > and use the retained checkpoint to restart the job from it once the Flink > > cluster is upgraded... or maybe I'm missing something ? > > > > I performed some tests and we are able to upgrade using checkpoint, by > > passing the checkpoint path in the "flink run -s" parameter. > > > > Could you help to clarify if this is advised (and supported) or we should > > stick to the use of savepoints for this kind of manipulations ? > > > > > > Thanks in advance for your help. > > > > Edward > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from: > http://apache-flink-user-mailing-list-archive.2336050.n4.nabble.com/ > > -- *Edward Alexander Rojas Clavijo* *Software EngineerHybrid CloudIBM France*
