You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flink.apache.org by 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com> on 2023/12/05 08:04:00 UTC
Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Hello everyone,
I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native, Despite setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that these limits and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and TaskManager (TM) pod deployment.
I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which introduced almost the same questions that I encountered.
I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should put priority on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
But this need some discussion in our community, because it related some scenarios:
If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the memory of the Flink main container to be larger than the process size of Flink, I cannot directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor, this will cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to use limit actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of the limit, which cannot be modified.
In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull request https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
This code is very simple and just need someone to review, this pr can be cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
I would appreciate any feedback on this.
Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink project.
Thank you,
chaoran.su
Re: Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Posted by Martijn Visser <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi Richard,
Shouldn't the solution then be solving the glibc problem?
Best regards,
Martijn
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:49 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, "To be clear, we need a container has memory larger than request, and confirm this pod has Guarantee Qos." which need to be "To be clear, we need a container has memory larger than process.size, and confirm this pod has Guarantee Qos."
>
> Thanks.
>
> Richard Su
>
>
> > 2023年12月5日 20:47，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >
> > Hi, Gyula, yes, this is a special case in our scenarios, sorry about that it's hard to understand, which we want to reserved some memory beyond the jobmanager or task manager's process.To be clear, we need a container has memory larger than request, and confirm this pod has Guarantee Qos.
> >
> > This is because we encounter the glibc problem inside container with flink job using Rcoksdb, which reserved memory will help to ease this problem.
> >
> > So I hope the container resources's request can be decoupling from flink configuration.
> >
> > From flink's current implementation, this could not be done.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Richard Su
> >
> >> 2023年12月5日 20:28，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>
> >> Richard, I still don't understand why the current setup doesn't work for
> >> you. According to
> >> https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-docs-release-1.18/docs/deployment/memory/mem_setup/
> >> :
> >>
> >> The process memory config (which is what we configure) translates directly
> >> into the container request size. With the new proposal you can set the
> >> limit independently.
> >>
> >> What you write doesn't make sense to me:
> >> "user wants to define a flinkdeployment with jobmanager has 1G memory
> >> resources in container field but config jobmanager.memory.process.size as
> >> 850m"
> >>
> >> If you want to have a 1G container you set the memory request
> >> (process.size) in the spec simply to 1G. Then you have 1G, there are other
> >> configs on how this 1G will be split inside the container for various
> >> purposes but these are all covered in detail by the flink memory configs.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Gyula
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:06 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think the new configuration could be :
> >>>
> >>> "kubernetes.taskmanager.memory.amount" and
> >>> "kubernetes.jobmanager.memory.amout"
> >>>
> >>> once we can calculate the limit-factor by the different of requests and
> >>> limits.
> >>>
> >>> when native mode, we no longer check the process.size as default memory,
> >>> but using this configuration for decoupling logic.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Richard Su
> >>>
> >>>> 2023年12月5日 19:22，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi, Gyula, from my opinion, this still will using flinkDeployment's
> >>> resource filed to set jobManager.memory.process.size, and I have told an
> >>> uncovered case that:
> >>>>
> >>>> When user wants to define a flinkdeployment with jobmanager has 1G
> >>> memory resources in container field but config
> >>> jobmanager.memory.process.size as 850m, which this solution only improves
> >>> user config and actually make sconfig more intuitive and easier but not
> >>> make the container resource decoupling flink configuration.
> >>>>
> >>>> So from my side, I think it need to add new configuration to support
> >>> this proposal, and it need more discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> Chaoran Su
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 2023年12月5日 18:28，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is the proposal according to FLINK-33548:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> spec:
> >>>>> taskManager:
> >>>>> resources:
> >>>>> requests:
> >>>>> memory: "64Mi"
> >>>>> cpu: "250m"
> >>>>> limits:
> >>>>> memory: "128Mi"
> >>>>> cpu: "500m"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I honestly think this is much more intuitive and easier than using the
> >>>>> podTemplate, which is very complex immediately.
> >>>>> Please tell me what use-case/setup is not covered by this improved spec.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Unless there is a big limitation here I am still -1 for modifying the
> >>>>> podTemplate logic and +1 for continuing with FLINK-33548
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gyula
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:16 AM Surendra Singh Lilhore <
> >>>>> surendralilhore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Gyula,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> FLINK-33548 proposes adding a new resource field to match with
> >>> Kubernetes
> >>>>>> pod resource configuration. Here's my suggestion: instead of adding a
> >>> new
> >>>>>> resource field, let's use a pod template for more advanced resource
> >>> setup.
> >>>>>> Adding a new resource field might confuse users. This change can also
> >>> help
> >>>>>> with issues when users use Flink Kubernetes commands directly, without
> >>> the
> >>>>>> operator.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>> Surendra
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:10 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sorry Gyula, let me explain more about the point of 2, if I avoid the
> >>>>>>> override, I will got a jobmanager pod still with resources consist
> >>> with
> >>>>>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size”, but a flinkdeployment with a
> >>> resource
> >>>>>>> larger than that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks for your time.
> >>>>>>> Richard Su
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 17:13，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thank you for your time, Gyula, I have more question about
> >>> Flink-33548,
> >>>>>>> we can have more discussion about this and make progress:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1. I agree with you about declaring resources in FlinkDeployment
> >>>>>>> resource sections. But Flink Operator will override the
> >>>>>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size” and
> >>> "taskmanager.memory.process.size",
> >>>>>>> despite I have set these configuration or not in flink configuration.
> >>> If
> >>>>>>> user had configured all memory attributes, the override will leads to
> >>>>>> error
> >>>>>>> as the overall computation is error.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the code of override is in FlinkConfigManager.class in buildFrom
> >>>>>> method,
> >>>>>>> which apply to JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2. If I modified the code of override, I will still encounter this
> >>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>> of FLINK-24150, because I only modified the code of flink operator but
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>>> flink-kubernetes package, so I will make a pod resources like (cpu:1c
> >>>>>>> memory:1g) and container resource to be (cpu:1c, memory 850m),
> >>> because I
> >>>>>>> already set jobmanager.memory.process.size to 850m.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 3. because of there two point, we need to make the podTemplate have
> >>>>>>> higher priority. Otherwise we can refactor the code of flink operator,
> >>>>>>> which should import something new configuration to support the native
> >>>>>> mode.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think it will be better to import some configuration, which
> >>>>>>> FlinkConfigManager.class can override it using the resource of
> >>>>>>> JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When it deep into the code flink-kubernetes package, we using these
> >>> new
> >>>>>>> configuration as the final result of containers resources.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for your time.
> >>>>>>>> Richard Su
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:45，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As you can see in the jira ticket there hasn't been any progress,
> >>>>>> nobody
> >>>>>>>>> started to work on this yet.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I personally don't think it's confusing to declare resources in the
> >>>>>>>>> FlinkDeployment resource sections. It's well documented and worked
> >>>>>> very
> >>>>>>>>> well so far for most users.
> >>>>>>>>> This is pretty common practice for kubernetes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>> Gyula
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:35 AM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, Gyula, is there had any progress in FLINK-33548? I would like
> >>> to
> >>>>>>> join
> >>>>>>>>>> the discussion but I haven't seen any discussion in the url.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I also make flinkdeployment by flink operator, which indeed will
> >>>>>>> override
> >>>>>>>>>> the process size by TaskmanagerSpec.resources or
> >>>>>>> JobmanagerSpec.resources,
> >>>>>>>>>> which really confused, I had modified the code of flink operator to
> >>>>>>> avoid
> >>>>>>>>>> the override.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Looking for your response.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
> >>>>>>>>>> Richard Su
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:22，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Please see the discussion in
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/6p5tk6obmk1qxf169so498z4vk8cg969
> >>>>>>>>>>> and the ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We should follow the approach outlined there. If you are
> >>> interested
> >>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>> welcome to pick up the operator ticket.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately your PR can be a large unexpected change to existing
> >>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>>>>> we should not add it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Gyula
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:05 AM 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native,
> >>>>>>> Despite
> >>>>>>>>>>>> setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that
> >>> these
> >>>>>>>>>> limits
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and
> >>>>>> TaskManager
> >>>>>>>>>> (TM)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pod deployment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which
> >>>>>> introduced
> >>>>>>>>>>>> almost the same questions that I encountered.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should put
> >>>>>>> priority
> >>>>>>>>>>>> on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But this need some discussion in our community, because it
> >>> related
> >>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the memory
> >>> of
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Flink main container to be larger than the process size of
> >>> Flink, I
> >>>>>>>>>> cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>> directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor,
> >>> this
> >>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to use
> >>>>>>> limit
> >>>>>>>>>>>> actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of the
> >>>>>>> limit,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> which cannot be modified.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull request
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This code is very simple and just need someone to review, this pr
> >>>>>>> can be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate any feedback on this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> chaoran.su
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
Re: Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Posted by "richard.su" <ri...@gmail.com>.
Thank you, Gyula, we are working on validate setting larger taskmanager.memory.jvm-overhead.fraction to ease this problem, and on the other side, we try to find a way in deployment path to ease this problem.
I agree with you proposal, may be I could find sometime to make a pr for FLINK-33548 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548>.
Thank you for your time.
Richard Su
> 2023年12月5日 21:24，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> I understand your problem but I think you are trying to find a solution in
> the wrong place.
> Have you tried setting taskmanager.memory.jvm-overhead.fraction ? That
> would reserve more memory from the total process memory for non-JVM use.
>
> Gyula
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:50 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, "To be clear, we need a container has memory larger than request,
>> and confirm this pod has Guarantee Qos." which need to be "To be clear, we
>> need a container has memory larger than process.size, and confirm this pod
>> has Guarantee Qos."
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Richard Su
>>
>>
>>> 2023年12月5日 20:47，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>
>>> Hi, Gyula, yes, this is a special case in our scenarios, sorry about
>> that it's hard to understand, which we want to reserved some memory beyond
>> the jobmanager or task manager's process.To be clear, we need a container
>> has memory larger than request, and confirm this pod has Guarantee Qos.
>>>
>>> This is because we encounter the glibc problem inside container with
>> flink job using Rcoksdb, which reserved memory will help to ease this
>> problem.
>>>
>>> So I hope the container resources's request can be decoupling from flink
>> configuration.
>>>
>>> From flink's current implementation, this could not be done.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Richard Su
>>>
>>>> 2023年12月5日 20:28，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>
>>>> Richard, I still don't understand why the current setup doesn't work for
>>>> you. According to
>>>>
>> https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-docs-release-1.18/docs/deployment/memory/mem_setup/
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> The process memory config (which is what we configure) translates
>> directly
>>>> into the container request size. With the new proposal you can set the
>>>> limit independently.
>>>>
>>>> What you write doesn't make sense to me:
>>>> "user wants to define a flinkdeployment with jobmanager has 1G memory
>>>> resources in container field but config jobmanager.memory.process.size
>> as
>>>> 850m"
>>>>
>>>> If you want to have a 1G container you set the memory request
>>>> (process.size) in the spec simply to 1G. Then you have 1G, there are
>> other
>>>> configs on how this 1G will be split inside the container for various
>>>> purposes but these are all covered in detail by the flink memory
>> configs.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Gyula
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:06 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think the new configuration could be :
>>>>>
>>>>> "kubernetes.taskmanager.memory.amount" and
>>>>> "kubernetes.jobmanager.memory.amout"
>>>>>
>>>>> once we can calculate the limit-factor by the different of requests and
>>>>> limits.
>>>>>
>>>>> when native mode, we no longer check the process.size as default
>> memory,
>>>>> but using this configuration for decoupling logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard Su
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 19:22，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, Gyula, from my opinion, this still will using flinkDeployment's
>>>>> resource filed to set jobManager.memory.process.size, and I have told
>> an
>>>>> uncovered case that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When user wants to define a flinkdeployment with jobmanager has 1G
>>>>> memory resources in container field but config
>>>>> jobmanager.memory.process.size as 850m, which this solution only
>> improves
>>>>> user config and actually make sconfig more intuitive and easier but not
>>>>> make the container resource decoupling flink configuration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So from my side, I think it need to add new configuration to support
>>>>> this proposal, and it need more discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Chaoran Su
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 18:28，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the proposal according to FLINK-33548:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> spec:
>>>>>>> taskManager:
>>>>>>> resources:
>>>>>>> requests:
>>>>>>> memory: "64Mi"
>>>>>>> cpu: "250m"
>>>>>>> limits:
>>>>>>> memory: "128Mi"
>>>>>>> cpu: "500m"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I honestly think this is much more intuitive and easier than using
>> the
>>>>>>> podTemplate, which is very complex immediately.
>>>>>>> Please tell me what use-case/setup is not covered by this improved
>> spec.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless there is a big limitation here I am still -1 for modifying the
>>>>>>> podTemplate logic and +1 for continuing with FLINK-33548
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gyula
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:16 AM Surendra Singh Lilhore <
>>>>>>> surendralilhore@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Gyula,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FLINK-33548 proposes adding a new resource field to match with
>>>>> Kubernetes
>>>>>>>> pod resource configuration. Here's my suggestion: instead of adding
>> a
>>>>> new
>>>>>>>> resource field, let's use a pod template for more advanced resource
>>>>> setup.
>>>>>>>> Adding a new resource field might confuse users. This change can
>> also
>>>>> help
>>>>>>>> with issues when users use Flink Kubernetes commands directly,
>> without
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> operator.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Surendra
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:10 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry Gyula, let me explain more about the point of 2, if I avoid
>> the
>>>>>>>>> override, I will got a jobmanager pod still with resources consist
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size”, but a flinkdeployment with a
>>>>> resource
>>>>>>>>> larger than that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>>>>>>> Richard Su
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 17:13，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your time, Gyula, I have more question about
>>>>> Flink-33548,
>>>>>>>>> we can have more discussion about this and make progress:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. I agree with you about declaring resources in FlinkDeployment
>>>>>>>>> resource sections. But Flink Operator will override the
>>>>>>>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size” and
>>>>> "taskmanager.memory.process.size",
>>>>>>>>> despite I have set these configuration or not in flink
>> configuration.
>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>> user had configured all memory attributes, the override will leads
>> to
>>>>>>>> error
>>>>>>>>> as the overall computation is error.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the code of override is in FlinkConfigManager.class in buildFrom
>>>>>>>> method,
>>>>>>>>> which apply to JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. If I modified the code of override, I will still encounter this
>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>> of FLINK-24150, because I only modified the code of flink operator
>> but
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> flink-kubernetes package, so I will make a pod resources like
>> (cpu:1c
>>>>>>>>> memory:1g) and container resource to be (cpu:1c, memory 850m),
>>>>> because I
>>>>>>>>> already set jobmanager.memory.process.size to 850m.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. because of there two point, we need to make the podTemplate
>> have
>>>>>>>>> higher priority. Otherwise we can refactor the code of flink
>> operator,
>>>>>>>>> which should import something new configuration to support the
>> native
>>>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think it will be better to import some configuration, which
>>>>>>>>> FlinkConfigManager.class can override it using the resource of
>>>>>>>>> JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When it deep into the code flink-kubernetes package, we using
>> these
>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>> configuration as the final result of containers resources.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>>>>>>>> Richard Su
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:45，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As you can see in the jira ticket there hasn't been any progress,
>>>>>>>> nobody
>>>>>>>>>>> started to work on this yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I personally don't think it's confusing to declare resources in
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> FlinkDeployment resource sections. It's well documented and
>> worked
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>> well so far for most users.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is pretty common practice for kubernetes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> Gyula
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:35 AM richard.su <
>> richardsucran@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Gyula, is there had any progress in FLINK-33548? I would
>> like
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> join
>>>>>>>>>>>> the discussion but I haven't seen any discussion in the url.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I also make flinkdeployment by flink operator, which indeed will
>>>>>>>>> override
>>>>>>>>>>>> the process size by TaskmanagerSpec.resources or
>>>>>>>>> JobmanagerSpec.resources,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which really confused, I had modified the code of flink
>> operator to
>>>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>> the override.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking for your response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Su
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:22，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see the discussion in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/6p5tk6obmk1qxf169so498z4vk8cg969
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the ticket:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We should follow the approach outlined there. If you are
>>>>> interested
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> welcome to pick up the operator ticket.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately your PR can be a large unexpected change to
>> existing
>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we should not add it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gyula
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:05 AM 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native,
>>>>>>>>> Despite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that
>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>> limits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and
>>>>>>>> TaskManager
>>>>>>>>>>>> (TM)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pod deployment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which
>>>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost the same questions that I encountered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should
>> put
>>>>>>>>> priority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But this need some discussion in our community, because it
>>>>> related
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the
>> memory
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink main container to be larger than the process size of
>>>>> Flink, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor,
>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to
>> use
>>>>>>>>> limit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of
>> the
>>>>>>>>> limit,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which cannot be modified.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull
>> request
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This code is very simple and just need someone to review,
>> this pr
>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate any feedback on this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink
>> project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaoran.su
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Posted by Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com>.
I understand your problem but I think you are trying to find a solution in
the wrong place.
Have you tried setting taskmanager.memory.jvm-overhead.fraction ? That
would reserve more memory from the total process memory for non-JVM use.
Gyula
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:50 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, "To be clear, we need a container has memory larger than request,
> and confirm this pod has Guarantee Qos." which need to be "To be clear, we
> need a container has memory larger than process.size, and confirm this pod
> has Guarantee Qos."
>
> Thanks.
>
> Richard Su
>
>
> > 2023年12月5日 20:47，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >
> > Hi, Gyula, yes, this is a special case in our scenarios, sorry about
> that it's hard to understand, which we want to reserved some memory beyond
> the jobmanager or task manager's process.To be clear, we need a container
> has memory larger than request, and confirm this pod has Guarantee Qos.
> >
> > This is because we encounter the glibc problem inside container with
> flink job using Rcoksdb, which reserved memory will help to ease this
> problem.
> >
> > So I hope the container resources's request can be decoupling from flink
> configuration.
> >
> > From flink's current implementation, this could not be done.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Richard Su
> >
> >> 2023年12月5日 20:28，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>
> >> Richard, I still don't understand why the current setup doesn't work for
> >> you. According to
> >>
> https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-docs-release-1.18/docs/deployment/memory/mem_setup/
> >> :
> >>
> >> The process memory config (which is what we configure) translates
> directly
> >> into the container request size. With the new proposal you can set the
> >> limit independently.
> >>
> >> What you write doesn't make sense to me:
> >> "user wants to define a flinkdeployment with jobmanager has 1G memory
> >> resources in container field but config jobmanager.memory.process.size
> as
> >> 850m"
> >>
> >> If you want to have a 1G container you set the memory request
> >> (process.size) in the spec simply to 1G. Then you have 1G, there are
> other
> >> configs on how this 1G will be split inside the container for various
> >> purposes but these are all covered in detail by the flink memory
> configs.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Gyula
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:06 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think the new configuration could be :
> >>>
> >>> "kubernetes.taskmanager.memory.amount" and
> >>> "kubernetes.jobmanager.memory.amout"
> >>>
> >>> once we can calculate the limit-factor by the different of requests and
> >>> limits.
> >>>
> >>> when native mode, we no longer check the process.size as default
> memory,
> >>> but using this configuration for decoupling logic.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Richard Su
> >>>
> >>>> 2023年12月5日 19:22，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi, Gyula, from my opinion, this still will using flinkDeployment's
> >>> resource filed to set jobManager.memory.process.size, and I have told
> an
> >>> uncovered case that:
> >>>>
> >>>> When user wants to define a flinkdeployment with jobmanager has 1G
> >>> memory resources in container field but config
> >>> jobmanager.memory.process.size as 850m, which this solution only
> improves
> >>> user config and actually make sconfig more intuitive and easier but not
> >>> make the container resource decoupling flink configuration.
> >>>>
> >>>> So from my side, I think it need to add new configuration to support
> >>> this proposal, and it need more discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> Chaoran Su
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 2023年12月5日 18:28，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is the proposal according to FLINK-33548:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> spec:
> >>>>> taskManager:
> >>>>> resources:
> >>>>> requests:
> >>>>> memory: "64Mi"
> >>>>> cpu: "250m"
> >>>>> limits:
> >>>>> memory: "128Mi"
> >>>>> cpu: "500m"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I honestly think this is much more intuitive and easier than using
> the
> >>>>> podTemplate, which is very complex immediately.
> >>>>> Please tell me what use-case/setup is not covered by this improved
> spec.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Unless there is a big limitation here I am still -1 for modifying the
> >>>>> podTemplate logic and +1 for continuing with FLINK-33548
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gyula
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:16 AM Surendra Singh Lilhore <
> >>>>> surendralilhore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Gyula,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> FLINK-33548 proposes adding a new resource field to match with
> >>> Kubernetes
> >>>>>> pod resource configuration. Here's my suggestion: instead of adding
> a
> >>> new
> >>>>>> resource field, let's use a pod template for more advanced resource
> >>> setup.
> >>>>>> Adding a new resource field might confuse users. This change can
> also
> >>> help
> >>>>>> with issues when users use Flink Kubernetes commands directly,
> without
> >>> the
> >>>>>> operator.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>> Surendra
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:10 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sorry Gyula, let me explain more about the point of 2, if I avoid
> the
> >>>>>>> override, I will got a jobmanager pod still with resources consist
> >>> with
> >>>>>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size”, but a flinkdeployment with a
> >>> resource
> >>>>>>> larger than that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks for your time.
> >>>>>>> Richard Su
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 17:13，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thank you for your time, Gyula, I have more question about
> >>> Flink-33548,
> >>>>>>> we can have more discussion about this and make progress:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1. I agree with you about declaring resources in FlinkDeployment
> >>>>>>> resource sections. But Flink Operator will override the
> >>>>>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size” and
> >>> "taskmanager.memory.process.size",
> >>>>>>> despite I have set these configuration or not in flink
> configuration.
> >>> If
> >>>>>>> user had configured all memory attributes, the override will leads
> to
> >>>>>> error
> >>>>>>> as the overall computation is error.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> the code of override is in FlinkConfigManager.class in buildFrom
> >>>>>> method,
> >>>>>>> which apply to JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2. If I modified the code of override, I will still encounter this
> >>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>> of FLINK-24150, because I only modified the code of flink operator
> but
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>>> flink-kubernetes package, so I will make a pod resources like
> (cpu:1c
> >>>>>>> memory:1g) and container resource to be (cpu:1c, memory 850m),
> >>> because I
> >>>>>>> already set jobmanager.memory.process.size to 850m.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 3. because of there two point, we need to make the podTemplate
> have
> >>>>>>> higher priority. Otherwise we can refactor the code of flink
> operator,
> >>>>>>> which should import something new configuration to support the
> native
> >>>>>> mode.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think it will be better to import some configuration, which
> >>>>>>> FlinkConfigManager.class can override it using the resource of
> >>>>>>> JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When it deep into the code flink-kubernetes package, we using
> these
> >>> new
> >>>>>>> configuration as the final result of containers resources.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for your time.
> >>>>>>>> Richard Su
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:45，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As you can see in the jira ticket there hasn't been any progress,
> >>>>>> nobody
> >>>>>>>>> started to work on this yet.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I personally don't think it's confusing to declare resources in
> the
> >>>>>>>>> FlinkDeployment resource sections. It's well documented and
> worked
> >>>>>> very
> >>>>>>>>> well so far for most users.
> >>>>>>>>> This is pretty common practice for kubernetes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>> Gyula
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:35 AM richard.su <
> richardsucran@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, Gyula, is there had any progress in FLINK-33548? I would
> like
> >>> to
> >>>>>>> join
> >>>>>>>>>> the discussion but I haven't seen any discussion in the url.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I also make flinkdeployment by flink operator, which indeed will
> >>>>>>> override
> >>>>>>>>>> the process size by TaskmanagerSpec.resources or
> >>>>>>> JobmanagerSpec.resources,
> >>>>>>>>>> which really confused, I had modified the code of flink
> operator to
> >>>>>>> avoid
> >>>>>>>>>> the override.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Looking for your response.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
> >>>>>>>>>> Richard Su
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:22，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Please see the discussion in
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/6p5tk6obmk1qxf169so498z4vk8cg969
> >>>>>>>>>>> and the ticket:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We should follow the approach outlined there. If you are
> >>> interested
> >>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>> welcome to pick up the operator ticket.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately your PR can be a large unexpected change to
> existing
> >>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>>>>> we should not add it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Gyula
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:05 AM 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native,
> >>>>>>> Despite
> >>>>>>>>>>>> setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that
> >>> these
> >>>>>>>>>> limits
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and
> >>>>>> TaskManager
> >>>>>>>>>> (TM)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pod deployment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which
> >>>>>> introduced
> >>>>>>>>>>>> almost the same questions that I encountered.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should
> put
> >>>>>>> priority
> >>>>>>>>>>>> on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But this need some discussion in our community, because it
> >>> related
> >>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the
> memory
> >>> of
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Flink main container to be larger than the process size of
> >>> Flink, I
> >>>>>>>>>> cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>> directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor,
> >>> this
> >>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to
> use
> >>>>>>> limit
> >>>>>>>>>>>> actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of
> the
> >>>>>>> limit,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> which cannot be modified.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull
> request
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This code is very simple and just need someone to review,
> this pr
> >>>>>>> can be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate any feedback on this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink
> project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> chaoran.su
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Posted by "richard.su" <ri...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, "To be clear, we need a container has memory larger than request, and confirm this pod has Guarantee Qos." which need to be "To be clear, we need a container has memory larger than process.size, and confirm this pod has Guarantee Qos."
Thanks.
Richard Su
> 2023年12月5日 20:47，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> Hi, Gyula, yes, this is a special case in our scenarios, sorry about that it's hard to understand, which we want to reserved some memory beyond the jobmanager or task manager's process.To be clear, we need a container has memory larger than request, and confirm this pod has Guarantee Qos.
>
> This is because we encounter the glibc problem inside container with flink job using Rcoksdb, which reserved memory will help to ease this problem.
>
> So I hope the container resources's request can be decoupling from flink configuration.
>
> From flink's current implementation, this could not be done.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Richard Su
>
>> 2023年12月5日 20:28，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>
>> Richard, I still don't understand why the current setup doesn't work for
>> you. According to
>> https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-docs-release-1.18/docs/deployment/memory/mem_setup/
>> :
>>
>> The process memory config (which is what we configure) translates directly
>> into the container request size. With the new proposal you can set the
>> limit independently.
>>
>> What you write doesn't make sense to me:
>> "user wants to define a flinkdeployment with jobmanager has 1G memory
>> resources in container field but config jobmanager.memory.process.size as
>> 850m"
>>
>> If you want to have a 1G container you set the memory request
>> (process.size) in the spec simply to 1G. Then you have 1G, there are other
>> configs on how this 1G will be split inside the container for various
>> purposes but these are all covered in detail by the flink memory configs.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Gyula
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:06 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the new configuration could be :
>>>
>>> "kubernetes.taskmanager.memory.amount" and
>>> "kubernetes.jobmanager.memory.amout"
>>>
>>> once we can calculate the limit-factor by the different of requests and
>>> limits.
>>>
>>> when native mode, we no longer check the process.size as default memory,
>>> but using this configuration for decoupling logic.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Richard Su
>>>
>>>> 2023年12月5日 19:22，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Gyula, from my opinion, this still will using flinkDeployment's
>>> resource filed to set jobManager.memory.process.size, and I have told an
>>> uncovered case that:
>>>>
>>>> When user wants to define a flinkdeployment with jobmanager has 1G
>>> memory resources in container field but config
>>> jobmanager.memory.process.size as 850m, which this solution only improves
>>> user config and actually make sconfig more intuitive and easier but not
>>> make the container resource decoupling flink configuration.
>>>>
>>>> So from my side, I think it need to add new configuration to support
>>> this proposal, and it need more discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Chaoran Su
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2023年12月5日 18:28，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the proposal according to FLINK-33548:
>>>>>
>>>>> spec:
>>>>> taskManager:
>>>>> resources:
>>>>> requests:
>>>>> memory: "64Mi"
>>>>> cpu: "250m"
>>>>> limits:
>>>>> memory: "128Mi"
>>>>> cpu: "500m"
>>>>>
>>>>> I honestly think this is much more intuitive and easier than using the
>>>>> podTemplate, which is very complex immediately.
>>>>> Please tell me what use-case/setup is not covered by this improved spec.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless there is a big limitation here I am still -1 for modifying the
>>>>> podTemplate logic and +1 for continuing with FLINK-33548
>>>>>
>>>>> Gyula
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:16 AM Surendra Singh Lilhore <
>>>>> surendralilhore@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Gyula,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FLINK-33548 proposes adding a new resource field to match with
>>> Kubernetes
>>>>>> pod resource configuration. Here's my suggestion: instead of adding a
>>> new
>>>>>> resource field, let's use a pod template for more advanced resource
>>> setup.
>>>>>> Adding a new resource field might confuse users. This change can also
>>> help
>>>>>> with issues when users use Flink Kubernetes commands directly, without
>>> the
>>>>>> operator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Surendra
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:10 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry Gyula, let me explain more about the point of 2, if I avoid the
>>>>>>> override, I will got a jobmanager pod still with resources consist
>>> with
>>>>>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size”, but a flinkdeployment with a
>>> resource
>>>>>>> larger than that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>>>>> Richard Su
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 17:13，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for your time, Gyula, I have more question about
>>> Flink-33548,
>>>>>>> we can have more discussion about this and make progress:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. I agree with you about declaring resources in FlinkDeployment
>>>>>>> resource sections. But Flink Operator will override the
>>>>>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size” and
>>> "taskmanager.memory.process.size",
>>>>>>> despite I have set these configuration or not in flink configuration.
>>> If
>>>>>>> user had configured all memory attributes, the override will leads to
>>>>>> error
>>>>>>> as the overall computation is error.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the code of override is in FlinkConfigManager.class in buildFrom
>>>>>> method,
>>>>>>> which apply to JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. If I modified the code of override, I will still encounter this
>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>> of FLINK-24150, because I only modified the code of flink operator but
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> flink-kubernetes package, so I will make a pod resources like (cpu:1c
>>>>>>> memory:1g) and container resource to be (cpu:1c, memory 850m),
>>> because I
>>>>>>> already set jobmanager.memory.process.size to 850m.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. because of there two point, we need to make the podTemplate have
>>>>>>> higher priority. Otherwise we can refactor the code of flink operator,
>>>>>>> which should import something new configuration to support the native
>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it will be better to import some configuration, which
>>>>>>> FlinkConfigManager.class can override it using the resource of
>>>>>>> JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it deep into the code flink-kubernetes package, we using these
>>> new
>>>>>>> configuration as the final result of containers resources.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>>>>>> Richard Su
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:45，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As you can see in the jira ticket there hasn't been any progress,
>>>>>> nobody
>>>>>>>>> started to work on this yet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I personally don't think it's confusing to declare resources in the
>>>>>>>>> FlinkDeployment resource sections. It's well documented and worked
>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> well so far for most users.
>>>>>>>>> This is pretty common practice for kubernetes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Gyula
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:35 AM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Gyula, is there had any progress in FLINK-33548? I would like
>>> to
>>>>>>> join
>>>>>>>>>> the discussion but I haven't seen any discussion in the url.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I also make flinkdeployment by flink operator, which indeed will
>>>>>>> override
>>>>>>>>>> the process size by TaskmanagerSpec.resources or
>>>>>>> JobmanagerSpec.resources,
>>>>>>>>>> which really confused, I had modified the code of flink operator to
>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>>> the override.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Looking for your response.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>>> Richard Su
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:22，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please see the discussion in
>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/6p5tk6obmk1qxf169so498z4vk8cg969
>>>>>>>>>>> and the ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We should follow the approach outlined there. If you are
>>> interested
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> welcome to pick up the operator ticket.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately your PR can be a large unexpected change to existing
>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>> we should not add it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> Gyula
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:05 AM 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native,
>>>>>>> Despite
>>>>>>>>>>>> setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that
>>> these
>>>>>>>>>> limits
>>>>>>>>>>>> and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and
>>>>>> TaskManager
>>>>>>>>>> (TM)
>>>>>>>>>>>> pod deployment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which
>>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>>> almost the same questions that I encountered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should put
>>>>>>> priority
>>>>>>>>>>>> on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But this need some discussion in our community, because it
>>> related
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios:
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the memory
>>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink main container to be larger than the process size of
>>> Flink, I
>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor,
>>> this
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>> cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to use
>>>>>>> limit
>>>>>>>>>>>> actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of the
>>>>>>> limit,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which cannot be modified.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull request
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This code is very simple and just need someone to review, this pr
>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate any feedback on this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>> chaoran.su
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Posted by "richard.su" <ri...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Gyula, yes, this is a special case in our scenarios, sorry about that it's hard to understand, which we want to reserved some memory beyond the jobmanager or task manager's process.To be clear, we need a container has memory larger than request, and confirm this pod has Guarantee Qos.
This is because we encounter the glibc problem inside container with flink job using Rcoksdb, which reserved memory will help to ease this problem.
So I hope the container resources's request can be decoupling from flink configuration.
From flink's current implementation, this could not be done.
Thanks.
Richard Su
> 2023年12月5日 20:28，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> Richard, I still don't understand why the current setup doesn't work for
> you. According to
> https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-docs-release-1.18/docs/deployment/memory/mem_setup/
> :
>
> The process memory config (which is what we configure) translates directly
> into the container request size. With the new proposal you can set the
> limit independently.
>
> What you write doesn't make sense to me:
> "user wants to define a flinkdeployment with jobmanager has 1G memory
> resources in container field but config jobmanager.memory.process.size as
> 850m"
>
> If you want to have a 1G container you set the memory request
> (process.size) in the spec simply to 1G. Then you have 1G, there are other
> configs on how this 1G will be split inside the container for various
> purposes but these are all covered in detail by the flink memory configs.
>
> Cheers
> Gyula
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:06 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the new configuration could be :
>>
>> "kubernetes.taskmanager.memory.amount" and
>> "kubernetes.jobmanager.memory.amout"
>>
>> once we can calculate the limit-factor by the different of requests and
>> limits.
>>
>> when native mode, we no longer check the process.size as default memory,
>> but using this configuration for decoupling logic.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Richard Su
>>
>>> 2023年12月5日 19:22，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>
>>> Hi, Gyula, from my opinion, this still will using flinkDeployment's
>> resource filed to set jobManager.memory.process.size, and I have told an
>> uncovered case that:
>>>
>>> When user wants to define a flinkdeployment with jobmanager has 1G
>> memory resources in container field but config
>> jobmanager.memory.process.size as 850m, which this solution only improves
>> user config and actually make sconfig more intuitive and easier but not
>> make the container resource decoupling flink configuration.
>>>
>>> So from my side, I think it need to add new configuration to support
>> this proposal, and it need more discussion.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Chaoran Su
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2023年12月5日 18:28，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>
>>>> This is the proposal according to FLINK-33548:
>>>>
>>>> spec:
>>>> taskManager:
>>>> resources:
>>>> requests:
>>>> memory: "64Mi"
>>>> cpu: "250m"
>>>> limits:
>>>> memory: "128Mi"
>>>> cpu: "500m"
>>>>
>>>> I honestly think this is much more intuitive and easier than using the
>>>> podTemplate, which is very complex immediately.
>>>> Please tell me what use-case/setup is not covered by this improved spec.
>>>>
>>>> Unless there is a big limitation here I am still -1 for modifying the
>>>> podTemplate logic and +1 for continuing with FLINK-33548
>>>>
>>>> Gyula
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:16 AM Surendra Singh Lilhore <
>>>> surendralilhore@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Gyula,
>>>>>
>>>>> FLINK-33548 proposes adding a new resource field to match with
>> Kubernetes
>>>>> pod resource configuration. Here's my suggestion: instead of adding a
>> new
>>>>> resource field, let's use a pod template for more advanced resource
>> setup.
>>>>> Adding a new resource field might confuse users. This change can also
>> help
>>>>> with issues when users use Flink Kubernetes commands directly, without
>> the
>>>>> operator.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Surendra
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:10 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry Gyula, let me explain more about the point of 2, if I avoid the
>>>>>> override, I will got a jobmanager pod still with resources consist
>> with
>>>>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size”, but a flinkdeployment with a
>> resource
>>>>>> larger than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>>>> Richard Su
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 17:13，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for your time, Gyula, I have more question about
>> Flink-33548,
>>>>>> we can have more discussion about this and make progress:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. I agree with you about declaring resources in FlinkDeployment
>>>>>> resource sections. But Flink Operator will override the
>>>>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size” and
>> "taskmanager.memory.process.size",
>>>>>> despite I have set these configuration or not in flink configuration.
>> If
>>>>>> user had configured all memory attributes, the override will leads to
>>>>> error
>>>>>> as the overall computation is error.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the code of override is in FlinkConfigManager.class in buildFrom
>>>>> method,
>>>>>> which apply to JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. If I modified the code of override, I will still encounter this
>>>>> issue
>>>>>> of FLINK-24150, because I only modified the code of flink operator but
>>>>> not
>>>>>> flink-kubernetes package, so I will make a pod resources like (cpu:1c
>>>>>> memory:1g) and container resource to be (cpu:1c, memory 850m),
>> because I
>>>>>> already set jobmanager.memory.process.size to 850m.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. because of there two point, we need to make the podTemplate have
>>>>>> higher priority. Otherwise we can refactor the code of flink operator,
>>>>>> which should import something new configuration to support the native
>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it will be better to import some configuration, which
>>>>>> FlinkConfigManager.class can override it using the resource of
>>>>>> JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When it deep into the code flink-kubernetes package, we using these
>> new
>>>>>> configuration as the final result of containers resources.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>>>>> Richard Su
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:45，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you can see in the jira ticket there hasn't been any progress,
>>>>> nobody
>>>>>>>> started to work on this yet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I personally don't think it's confusing to declare resources in the
>>>>>>>> FlinkDeployment resource sections. It's well documented and worked
>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> well so far for most users.
>>>>>>>> This is pretty common practice for kubernetes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Gyula
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:35 AM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi, Gyula, is there had any progress in FLINK-33548? I would like
>> to
>>>>>> join
>>>>>>>>> the discussion but I haven't seen any discussion in the url.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also make flinkdeployment by flink operator, which indeed will
>>>>>> override
>>>>>>>>> the process size by TaskmanagerSpec.resources or
>>>>>> JobmanagerSpec.resources,
>>>>>>>>> which really confused, I had modified the code of flink operator to
>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>> the override.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Looking for your response.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>> Richard Su
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:22，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please see the discussion in
>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/6p5tk6obmk1qxf169so498z4vk8cg969
>>>>>>>>>> and the ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We should follow the approach outlined there. If you are
>> interested
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> welcome to pick up the operator ticket.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately your PR can be a large unexpected change to existing
>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>> we should not add it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> Gyula
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:05 AM 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native,
>>>>>> Despite
>>>>>>>>>>> setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that
>> these
>>>>>>>>> limits
>>>>>>>>>>> and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and
>>>>> TaskManager
>>>>>>>>> (TM)
>>>>>>>>>>> pod deployment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which
>>>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>>>> almost the same questions that I encountered.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should put
>>>>>> priority
>>>>>>>>>>> on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But this need some discussion in our community, because it
>> related
>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> scenarios:
>>>>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the memory
>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Flink main container to be larger than the process size of
>> Flink, I
>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor,
>> this
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
>>>>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to use
>>>>>> limit
>>>>>>>>>>> actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of the
>>>>>> limit,
>>>>>>>>>>> which cannot be modified.
>>>>>>>>>>> In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull request
>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This code is very simple and just need someone to review, this pr
>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>>>> cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate any feedback on this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink project.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>> chaoran.su
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Posted by Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com>.
Richard, I still don't understand why the current setup doesn't work for
you. According to
https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-docs-release-1.18/docs/deployment/memory/mem_setup/
:
The process memory config (which is what we configure) translates directly
into the container request size. With the new proposal you can set the
limit independently.
What you write doesn't make sense to me:
"user wants to define a flinkdeployment with jobmanager has 1G memory
resources in container field but config jobmanager.memory.process.size as
850m"
If you want to have a 1G container you set the memory request
(process.size) in the spec simply to 1G. Then you have 1G, there are other
configs on how this 1G will be split inside the container for various
purposes but these are all covered in detail by the flink memory configs.
Cheers
Gyula
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 1:06 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the new configuration could be :
>
> "kubernetes.taskmanager.memory.amount" and
> "kubernetes.jobmanager.memory.amout"
>
> once we can calculate the limit-factor by the different of requests and
> limits.
>
> when native mode, we no longer check the process.size as default memory,
> but using this configuration for decoupling logic.
>
> Thanks
>
> Richard Su
>
> > 2023年12月5日 19:22，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >
> > Hi, Gyula, from my opinion, this still will using flinkDeployment's
> resource filed to set jobManager.memory.process.size, and I have told an
> uncovered case that:
> >
> > When user wants to define a flinkdeployment with jobmanager has 1G
> memory resources in container field but config
> jobmanager.memory.process.size as 850m, which this solution only improves
> user config and actually make sconfig more intuitive and easier but not
> make the container resource decoupling flink configuration.
> >
> > So from my side, I think it need to add new configuration to support
> this proposal, and it need more discussion.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Chaoran Su
> >
> >
> >> 2023年12月5日 18:28，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>
> >> This is the proposal according to FLINK-33548:
> >>
> >> spec:
> >> taskManager:
> >> resources:
> >> requests:
> >> memory: "64Mi"
> >> cpu: "250m"
> >> limits:
> >> memory: "128Mi"
> >> cpu: "500m"
> >>
> >> I honestly think this is much more intuitive and easier than using the
> >> podTemplate, which is very complex immediately.
> >> Please tell me what use-case/setup is not covered by this improved spec.
> >>
> >> Unless there is a big limitation here I am still -1 for modifying the
> >> podTemplate logic and +1 for continuing with FLINK-33548
> >>
> >> Gyula
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:16 AM Surendra Singh Lilhore <
> >> surendralilhore@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Gyula,
> >>>
> >>> FLINK-33548 proposes adding a new resource field to match with
> Kubernetes
> >>> pod resource configuration. Here's my suggestion: instead of adding a
> new
> >>> resource field, let's use a pod template for more advanced resource
> setup.
> >>> Adding a new resource field might confuse users. This change can also
> help
> >>> with issues when users use Flink Kubernetes commands directly, without
> the
> >>> operator.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Surendra
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:10 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Sorry Gyula, let me explain more about the point of 2, if I avoid the
> >>>> override, I will got a jobmanager pod still with resources consist
> with
> >>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size”, but a flinkdeployment with a
> resource
> >>>> larger than that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for your time.
> >>>> Richard Su
> >>>>
> >>>>> 2023年12月5日 17:13，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you for your time, Gyula, I have more question about
> Flink-33548,
> >>>> we can have more discussion about this and make progress:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. I agree with you about declaring resources in FlinkDeployment
> >>>> resource sections. But Flink Operator will override the
> >>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size” and
> "taskmanager.memory.process.size",
> >>>> despite I have set these configuration or not in flink configuration.
> If
> >>>> user had configured all memory attributes, the override will leads to
> >>> error
> >>>> as the overall computation is error.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the code of override is in FlinkConfigManager.class in buildFrom
> >>> method,
> >>>> which apply to JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. If I modified the code of override, I will still encounter this
> >>> issue
> >>>> of FLINK-24150, because I only modified the code of flink operator but
> >>> not
> >>>> flink-kubernetes package, so I will make a pod resources like (cpu:1c
> >>>> memory:1g) and container resource to be (cpu:1c, memory 850m),
> because I
> >>>> already set jobmanager.memory.process.size to 850m.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3. because of there two point, we need to make the podTemplate have
> >>>> higher priority. Otherwise we can refactor the code of flink operator,
> >>>> which should import something new configuration to support the native
> >>> mode.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think it will be better to import some configuration, which
> >>>> FlinkConfigManager.class can override it using the resource of
> >>>> JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When it deep into the code flink-kubernetes package, we using these
> new
> >>>> configuration as the final result of containers resources.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for your time.
> >>>>> Richard Su
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:45，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As you can see in the jira ticket there hasn't been any progress,
> >>> nobody
> >>>>>> started to work on this yet.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I personally don't think it's confusing to declare resources in the
> >>>>>> FlinkDeployment resource sections. It's well documented and worked
> >>> very
> >>>>>> well so far for most users.
> >>>>>> This is pretty common practice for kubernetes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> Gyula
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:35 AM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi, Gyula, is there had any progress in FLINK-33548? I would like
> to
> >>>> join
> >>>>>>> the discussion but I haven't seen any discussion in the url.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I also make flinkdeployment by flink operator, which indeed will
> >>>> override
> >>>>>>> the process size by TaskmanagerSpec.resources or
> >>>> JobmanagerSpec.resources,
> >>>>>>> which really confused, I had modified the code of flink operator to
> >>>> avoid
> >>>>>>> the override.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Looking for your response.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thank you.
> >>>>>>> Richard Su
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:22，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please see the discussion in
> >>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/6p5tk6obmk1qxf169so498z4vk8cg969
> >>>>>>>> and the ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We should follow the approach outlined there. If you are
> interested
> >>>> you
> >>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>> welcome to pick up the operator ticket.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Unfortunately your PR can be a large unexpected change to existing
> >>>> users
> >>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>> we should not add it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>> Gyula
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:05 AM 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native,
> >>>> Despite
> >>>>>>>>> setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that
> these
> >>>>>>> limits
> >>>>>>>>> and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and
> >>> TaskManager
> >>>>>>> (TM)
> >>>>>>>>> pod deployment.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which
> >>> introduced
> >>>>>>>>> almost the same questions that I encountered.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should put
> >>>> priority
> >>>>>>>>> on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But this need some discussion in our community, because it
> related
> >>>> some
> >>>>>>>>> scenarios:
> >>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the memory
> of
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> Flink main container to be larger than the process size of
> Flink, I
> >>>>>>> cannot
> >>>>>>>>> directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor,
> this
> >>>> will
> >>>>>>>>> cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
> >>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to use
> >>>> limit
> >>>>>>>>> actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of the
> >>>> limit,
> >>>>>>>>> which cannot be modified.
> >>>>>>>>> In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull request
> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This code is very simple and just need someone to review, this pr
> >>>> can be
> >>>>>>>>> cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I would appreciate any feedback on this.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink project.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>> chaoran.su
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Posted by "richard.su" <ri...@gmail.com>.
I think the new configuration could be :
"kubernetes.taskmanager.memory.amount" and "kubernetes.jobmanager.memory.amout"
once we can calculate the limit-factor by the different of requests and limits.
when native mode, we no longer check the process.size as default memory, but using this configuration for decoupling logic.
Thanks
Richard Su
> 2023年12月5日 19:22，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> Hi, Gyula, from my opinion, this still will using flinkDeployment's resource filed to set jobManager.memory.process.size, and I have told an uncovered case that:
>
> When user wants to define a flinkdeployment with jobmanager has 1G memory resources in container field but config jobmanager.memory.process.size as 850m, which this solution only improves user config and actually make sconfig more intuitive and easier but not make the container resource decoupling flink configuration.
>
> So from my side, I think it need to add new configuration to support this proposal, and it need more discussion.
>
> Thanks
> Chaoran Su
>
>
>> 2023年12月5日 18:28，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>
>> This is the proposal according to FLINK-33548:
>>
>> spec:
>> taskManager:
>> resources:
>> requests:
>> memory: "64Mi"
>> cpu: "250m"
>> limits:
>> memory: "128Mi"
>> cpu: "500m"
>>
>> I honestly think this is much more intuitive and easier than using the
>> podTemplate, which is very complex immediately.
>> Please tell me what use-case/setup is not covered by this improved spec.
>>
>> Unless there is a big limitation here I am still -1 for modifying the
>> podTemplate logic and +1 for continuing with FLINK-33548
>>
>> Gyula
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:16 AM Surendra Singh Lilhore <
>> surendralilhore@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Gyula,
>>>
>>> FLINK-33548 proposes adding a new resource field to match with Kubernetes
>>> pod resource configuration. Here's my suggestion: instead of adding a new
>>> resource field, let's use a pod template for more advanced resource setup.
>>> Adding a new resource field might confuse users. This change can also help
>>> with issues when users use Flink Kubernetes commands directly, without the
>>> operator.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Surendra
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:10 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry Gyula, let me explain more about the point of 2, if I avoid the
>>>> override, I will got a jobmanager pod still with resources consist with
>>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size”, but a flinkdeployment with a resource
>>>> larger than that.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>> Richard Su
>>>>
>>>>> 2023年12月5日 17:13，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your time, Gyula, I have more question about Flink-33548,
>>>> we can have more discussion about this and make progress:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I agree with you about declaring resources in FlinkDeployment
>>>> resource sections. But Flink Operator will override the
>>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size” and "taskmanager.memory.process.size",
>>>> despite I have set these configuration or not in flink configuration. If
>>>> user had configured all memory attributes, the override will leads to
>>> error
>>>> as the overall computation is error.
>>>>>
>>>>> the code of override is in FlinkConfigManager.class in buildFrom
>>> method,
>>>> which apply to JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. If I modified the code of override, I will still encounter this
>>> issue
>>>> of FLINK-24150, because I only modified the code of flink operator but
>>> not
>>>> flink-kubernetes package, so I will make a pod resources like (cpu:1c
>>>> memory:1g) and container resource to be (cpu:1c, memory 850m), because I
>>>> already set jobmanager.memory.process.size to 850m.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. because of there two point, we need to make the podTemplate have
>>>> higher priority. Otherwise we can refactor the code of flink operator,
>>>> which should import something new configuration to support the native
>>> mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it will be better to import some configuration, which
>>>> FlinkConfigManager.class can override it using the resource of
>>>> JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
>>>>>
>>>>> When it deep into the code flink-kubernetes package, we using these new
>>>> configuration as the final result of containers resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>>> Richard Su
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:45，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you can see in the jira ticket there hasn't been any progress,
>>> nobody
>>>>>> started to work on this yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally don't think it's confusing to declare resources in the
>>>>>> FlinkDeployment resource sections. It's well documented and worked
>>> very
>>>>>> well so far for most users.
>>>>>> This is pretty common practice for kubernetes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Gyula
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:35 AM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi, Gyula, is there had any progress in FLINK-33548? I would like to
>>>> join
>>>>>>> the discussion but I haven't seen any discussion in the url.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also make flinkdeployment by flink operator, which indeed will
>>>> override
>>>>>>> the process size by TaskmanagerSpec.resources or
>>>> JobmanagerSpec.resources,
>>>>>>> which really confused, I had modified the code of flink operator to
>>>> avoid
>>>>>>> the override.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking for your response.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>> Richard Su
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:22，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please see the discussion in
>>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/6p5tk6obmk1qxf169so498z4vk8cg969
>>>>>>>> and the ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We should follow the approach outlined there. If you are interested
>>>> you
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> welcome to pick up the operator ticket.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately your PR can be a large unexpected change to existing
>>>> users
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>> we should not add it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Gyula
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:05 AM 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native,
>>>> Despite
>>>>>>>>> setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that these
>>>>>>> limits
>>>>>>>>> and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and
>>> TaskManager
>>>>>>> (TM)
>>>>>>>>> pod deployment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which
>>> introduced
>>>>>>>>> almost the same questions that I encountered.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should put
>>>> priority
>>>>>>>>> on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But this need some discussion in our community, because it related
>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> scenarios:
>>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the memory of
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Flink main container to be larger than the process size of Flink, I
>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>> directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor, this
>>>> will
>>>>>>>>> cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
>>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to use
>>>> limit
>>>>>>>>> actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of the
>>>> limit,
>>>>>>>>> which cannot be modified.
>>>>>>>>> In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull request
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This code is very simple and just need someone to review, this pr
>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>> cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate any feedback on this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink project.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>> chaoran.su
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Posted by "richard.su" <ri...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Gyula, from my opinion, this still will using flinkDeployment's resource filed to set jobManager.memory.process.size, and I have told an uncovered case that:
When user wants to define a flinkdeployment with jobmanager has 1G memory resources in container field but config jobmanager.memory.process.size as 850m, which this solution only improves user config and actually make sconfig more intuitive and easier but not make the container resource decoupling flink configuration.
So from my side, I think it need to add new configuration to support this proposal, and it need more discussion.
Thanks
Chaoran Su
> 2023年12月5日 18:28，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> This is the proposal according to FLINK-33548:
>
> spec:
> taskManager:
> resources:
> requests:
> memory: "64Mi"
> cpu: "250m"
> limits:
> memory: "128Mi"
> cpu: "500m"
>
> I honestly think this is much more intuitive and easier than using the
> podTemplate, which is very complex immediately.
> Please tell me what use-case/setup is not covered by this improved spec.
>
> Unless there is a big limitation here I am still -1 for modifying the
> podTemplate logic and +1 for continuing with FLINK-33548
>
> Gyula
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:16 AM Surendra Singh Lilhore <
> surendralilhore@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Gyula,
>>
>> FLINK-33548 proposes adding a new resource field to match with Kubernetes
>> pod resource configuration. Here's my suggestion: instead of adding a new
>> resource field, let's use a pod template for more advanced resource setup.
>> Adding a new resource field might confuse users. This change can also help
>> with issues when users use Flink Kubernetes commands directly, without the
>> operator.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Surendra
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:10 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry Gyula, let me explain more about the point of 2, if I avoid the
>>> override, I will got a jobmanager pod still with resources consist with
>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size”, but a flinkdeployment with a resource
>>> larger than that.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your time.
>>> Richard Su
>>>
>>>> 2023年12月5日 17:13，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your time, Gyula, I have more question about Flink-33548,
>>> we can have more discussion about this and make progress:
>>>>
>>>> 1. I agree with you about declaring resources in FlinkDeployment
>>> resource sections. But Flink Operator will override the
>>> “jobmanager.memory.process.size” and "taskmanager.memory.process.size",
>>> despite I have set these configuration or not in flink configuration. If
>>> user had configured all memory attributes, the override will leads to
>> error
>>> as the overall computation is error.
>>>>
>>>> the code of override is in FlinkConfigManager.class in buildFrom
>> method,
>>> which apply to JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
>>>>
>>>> 2. If I modified the code of override, I will still encounter this
>> issue
>>> of FLINK-24150, because I only modified the code of flink operator but
>> not
>>> flink-kubernetes package, so I will make a pod resources like (cpu:1c
>>> memory:1g) and container resource to be (cpu:1c, memory 850m), because I
>>> already set jobmanager.memory.process.size to 850m.
>>>>
>>>> 3. because of there two point, we need to make the podTemplate have
>>> higher priority. Otherwise we can refactor the code of flink operator,
>>> which should import something new configuration to support the native
>> mode.
>>>>
>>>> I think it will be better to import some configuration, which
>>> FlinkConfigManager.class can override it using the resource of
>>> JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
>>>>
>>>> When it deep into the code flink-kubernetes package, we using these new
>>> configuration as the final result of containers resources.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>> Richard Su
>>>>
>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:45，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>
>>>>> As you can see in the jira ticket there hasn't been any progress,
>> nobody
>>>>> started to work on this yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally don't think it's confusing to declare resources in the
>>>>> FlinkDeployment resource sections. It's well documented and worked
>> very
>>>>> well so far for most users.
>>>>> This is pretty common practice for kubernetes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Gyula
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:35 AM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, Gyula, is there had any progress in FLINK-33548? I would like to
>>> join
>>>>>> the discussion but I haven't seen any discussion in the url.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also make flinkdeployment by flink operator, which indeed will
>>> override
>>>>>> the process size by TaskmanagerSpec.resources or
>>> JobmanagerSpec.resources,
>>>>>> which really confused, I had modified the code of flink operator to
>>> avoid
>>>>>> the override.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking for your response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>> Richard Su
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:22，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please see the discussion in
>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/6p5tk6obmk1qxf169so498z4vk8cg969
>>>>>>> and the ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We should follow the approach outlined there. If you are interested
>>> you
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> welcome to pick up the operator ticket.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately your PR can be a large unexpected change to existing
>>> users
>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> we should not add it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Gyula
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:05 AM 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native,
>>> Despite
>>>>>>>> setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that these
>>>>>> limits
>>>>>>>> and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and
>> TaskManager
>>>>>> (TM)
>>>>>>>> pod deployment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which
>> introduced
>>>>>>>> almost the same questions that I encountered.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should put
>>> priority
>>>>>>>> on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But this need some discussion in our community, because it related
>>> some
>>>>>>>> scenarios:
>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the memory of
>>> the
>>>>>>>> Flink main container to be larger than the process size of Flink, I
>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>> directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor, this
>>> will
>>>>>>>> cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
>>>>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to use
>>> limit
>>>>>>>> actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of the
>>> limit,
>>>>>>>> which cannot be modified.
>>>>>>>> In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull request
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This code is very simple and just need someone to review, this pr
>>> can be
>>>>>>>> cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would appreciate any feedback on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink project.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>> chaoran.su
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Posted by Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com>.
This is the proposal according to FLINK-33548:
spec:
taskManager:
resources:
requests:
memory: "64Mi"
cpu: "250m"
limits:
memory: "128Mi"
cpu: "500m"
I honestly think this is much more intuitive and easier than using the
podTemplate, which is very complex immediately.
Please tell me what use-case/setup is not covered by this improved spec.
Unless there is a big limitation here I am still -1 for modifying the
podTemplate logic and +1 for continuing with FLINK-33548
Gyula
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 11:16 AM Surendra Singh Lilhore <
surendralilhore@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Gyula,
>
> FLINK-33548 proposes adding a new resource field to match with Kubernetes
> pod resource configuration. Here's my suggestion: instead of adding a new
> resource field, let's use a pod template for more advanced resource setup.
> Adding a new resource field might confuse users. This change can also help
> with issues when users use Flink Kubernetes commands directly, without the
> operator.
>
> Thanks
> Surendra
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:10 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry Gyula, let me explain more about the point of 2, if I avoid the
> > override, I will got a jobmanager pod still with resources consist with
> > “jobmanager.memory.process.size”, but a flinkdeployment with a resource
> > larger than that.
> >
> > Thanks for your time.
> > Richard Su
> >
> > > 2023年12月5日 17:13，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
> > >
> > > Thank you for your time, Gyula, I have more question about Flink-33548,
> > we can have more discussion about this and make progress:
> > >
> > > 1. I agree with you about declaring resources in FlinkDeployment
> > resource sections. But Flink Operator will override the
> > “jobmanager.memory.process.size” and "taskmanager.memory.process.size",
> > despite I have set these configuration or not in flink configuration. If
> > user had configured all memory attributes, the override will leads to
> error
> > as the overall computation is error.
> > >
> > > the code of override is in FlinkConfigManager.class in buildFrom
> method,
> > which apply to JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
> > >
> > > 2. If I modified the code of override, I will still encounter this
> issue
> > of FLINK-24150, because I only modified the code of flink operator but
> not
> > flink-kubernetes package, so I will make a pod resources like (cpu:1c
> > memory:1g) and container resource to be (cpu:1c, memory 850m), because I
> > already set jobmanager.memory.process.size to 850m.
> > >
> > > 3. because of there two point, we need to make the podTemplate have
> > higher priority. Otherwise we can refactor the code of flink operator,
> > which should import something new configuration to support the native
> mode.
> > >
> > > I think it will be better to import some configuration, which
> > FlinkConfigManager.class can override it using the resource of
> > JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
> > >
> > > When it deep into the code flink-kubernetes package, we using these new
> > configuration as the final result of containers resources.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your time.
> > > Richard Su
> > >
> > >> 2023年12月5日 16:45，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> > >>
> > >> As you can see in the jira ticket there hasn't been any progress,
> nobody
> > >> started to work on this yet.
> > >>
> > >> I personally don't think it's confusing to declare resources in the
> > >> FlinkDeployment resource sections. It's well documented and worked
> very
> > >> well so far for most users.
> > >> This is pretty common practice for kubernetes.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Gyula
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:35 AM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi, Gyula, is there had any progress in FLINK-33548? I would like to
> > join
> > >>> the discussion but I haven't seen any discussion in the url.
> > >>>
> > >>> I also make flinkdeployment by flink operator, which indeed will
> > override
> > >>> the process size by TaskmanagerSpec.resources or
> > JobmanagerSpec.resources,
> > >>> which really confused, I had modified the code of flink operator to
> > avoid
> > >>> the override.
> > >>>
> > >>> Looking for your response.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you.
> > >>> Richard Su
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> 2023年12月5日 16:22，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please see the discussion in
> > >>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/6p5tk6obmk1qxf169so498z4vk8cg969
> > >>>> and the ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We should follow the approach outlined there. If you are interested
> > you
> > >>> are
> > >>>> welcome to pick up the operator ticket.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Unfortunately your PR can be a large unexpected change to existing
> > users
> > >>> so
> > >>>> we should not add it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Cheers,
> > >>>> Gyula
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:05 AM 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hello everyone,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native,
> > Despite
> > >>>>> setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that these
> > >>> limits
> > >>>>> and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and
> TaskManager
> > >>> (TM)
> > >>>>> pod deployment.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which
> introduced
> > >>>>> almost the same questions that I encountered.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should put
> > priority
> > >>>>> on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> But this need some discussion in our community, because it related
> > some
> > >>>>> scenarios:
> > >>>>> If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the memory of
> > the
> > >>>>> Flink main container to be larger than the process size of Flink, I
> > >>> cannot
> > >>>>> directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor, this
> > will
> > >>>>> cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
> > >>>>> If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to use
> > limit
> > >>>>> actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of the
> > limit,
> > >>>>> which cannot be modified.
> > >>>>> In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull request
> > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This code is very simple and just need someone to review, this pr
> > can be
> > >>>>> cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I would appreciate any feedback on this.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink project.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>> chaoran.su
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Posted by Surendra Singh Lilhore <su...@gmail.com>.
Hi Gyula,
FLINK-33548 proposes adding a new resource field to match with Kubernetes
pod resource configuration. Here's my suggestion: instead of adding a new
resource field, let's use a pod template for more advanced resource setup.
Adding a new resource field might confuse users. This change can also help
with issues when users use Flink Kubernetes commands directly, without the
operator.
Thanks
Surendra
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:10 PM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry Gyula, let me explain more about the point of 2, if I avoid the
> override, I will got a jobmanager pod still with resources consist with
> “jobmanager.memory.process.size”, but a flinkdeployment with a resource
> larger than that.
>
> Thanks for your time.
> Richard Su
>
> > 2023年12月5日 17:13，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >
> > Thank you for your time, Gyula, I have more question about Flink-33548,
> we can have more discussion about this and make progress:
> >
> > 1. I agree with you about declaring resources in FlinkDeployment
> resource sections. But Flink Operator will override the
> “jobmanager.memory.process.size” and "taskmanager.memory.process.size",
> despite I have set these configuration or not in flink configuration. If
> user had configured all memory attributes, the override will leads to error
> as the overall computation is error.
> >
> > the code of override is in FlinkConfigManager.class in buildFrom method,
> which apply to JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
> >
> > 2. If I modified the code of override, I will still encounter this issue
> of FLINK-24150, because I only modified the code of flink operator but not
> flink-kubernetes package, so I will make a pod resources like (cpu:1c
> memory:1g) and container resource to be (cpu:1c, memory 850m), because I
> already set jobmanager.memory.process.size to 850m.
> >
> > 3. because of there two point, we need to make the podTemplate have
> higher priority. Otherwise we can refactor the code of flink operator,
> which should import something new configuration to support the native mode.
> >
> > I think it will be better to import some configuration, which
> FlinkConfigManager.class can override it using the resource of
> JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
> >
> > When it deep into the code flink-kubernetes package, we using these new
> configuration as the final result of containers resources.
> >
> > Thanks for your time.
> > Richard Su
> >
> >> 2023年12月5日 16:45，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>
> >> As you can see in the jira ticket there hasn't been any progress, nobody
> >> started to work on this yet.
> >>
> >> I personally don't think it's confusing to declare resources in the
> >> FlinkDeployment resource sections. It's well documented and worked very
> >> well so far for most users.
> >> This is pretty common practice for kubernetes.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Gyula
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:35 AM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, Gyula, is there had any progress in FLINK-33548? I would like to
> join
> >>> the discussion but I haven't seen any discussion in the url.
> >>>
> >>> I also make flinkdeployment by flink operator, which indeed will
> override
> >>> the process size by TaskmanagerSpec.resources or
> JobmanagerSpec.resources,
> >>> which really confused, I had modified the code of flink operator to
> avoid
> >>> the override.
> >>>
> >>> Looking for your response.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you.
> >>> Richard Su
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 2023年12月5日 16:22，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi!
> >>>>
> >>>> Please see the discussion in
> >>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/6p5tk6obmk1qxf169so498z4vk8cg969
> >>>> and the ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548
> >>>>
> >>>> We should follow the approach outlined there. If you are interested
> you
> >>> are
> >>>> welcome to pick up the operator ticket.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately your PR can be a large unexpected change to existing
> users
> >>> so
> >>>> we should not add it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Gyula
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:05 AM 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello everyone,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native,
> Despite
> >>>>> setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that these
> >>> limits
> >>>>> and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and TaskManager
> >>> (TM)
> >>>>> pod deployment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which introduced
> >>>>> almost the same questions that I encountered.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should put
> priority
> >>>>> on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But this need some discussion in our community, because it related
> some
> >>>>> scenarios:
> >>>>> If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the memory of
> the
> >>>>> Flink main container to be larger than the process size of Flink, I
> >>> cannot
> >>>>> directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor, this
> will
> >>>>> cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
> >>>>> If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to use
> limit
> >>>>> actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of the
> limit,
> >>>>> which cannot be modified.
> >>>>> In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull request
> >>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This code is very simple and just need someone to review, this pr
> can be
> >>>>> cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would appreciate any feedback on this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink project.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>> chaoran.su
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Posted by "richard.su" <ri...@gmail.com>.
Sorry Gyula, let me explain more about the point of 2, if I avoid the override, I will got a jobmanager pod still with resources consist with “jobmanager.memory.process.size”, but a flinkdeployment with a resource larger than that.
Thanks for your time.
Richard Su
> 2023年12月5日 17:13，richard.su <Ri...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> Thank you for your time, Gyula, I have more question about Flink-33548, we can have more discussion about this and make progress:
>
> 1. I agree with you about declaring resources in FlinkDeployment resource sections. But Flink Operator will override the “jobmanager.memory.process.size” and "taskmanager.memory.process.size", despite I have set these configuration or not in flink configuration. If user had configured all memory attributes, the override will leads to error as the overall computation is error.
>
> the code of override is in FlinkConfigManager.class in buildFrom method, which apply to JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
>
> 2. If I modified the code of override, I will still encounter this issue of FLINK-24150, because I only modified the code of flink operator but not flink-kubernetes package, so I will make a pod resources like (cpu:1c memory:1g) and container resource to be (cpu:1c, memory 850m), because I already set jobmanager.memory.process.size to 850m.
>
> 3. because of there two point, we need to make the podTemplate have higher priority. Otherwise we can refactor the code of flink operator, which should import something new configuration to support the native mode.
>
> I think it will be better to import some configuration, which FlinkConfigManager.class can override it using the resource of JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
>
> When it deep into the code flink-kubernetes package, we using these new configuration as the final result of containers resources.
>
> Thanks for your time.
> Richard Su
>
>> 2023年12月5日 16:45，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>
>> As you can see in the jira ticket there hasn't been any progress, nobody
>> started to work on this yet.
>>
>> I personally don't think it's confusing to declare resources in the
>> FlinkDeployment resource sections. It's well documented and worked very
>> well so far for most users.
>> This is pretty common practice for kubernetes.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Gyula
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:35 AM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Gyula, is there had any progress in FLINK-33548? I would like to join
>>> the discussion but I haven't seen any discussion in the url.
>>>
>>> I also make flinkdeployment by flink operator, which indeed will override
>>> the process size by TaskmanagerSpec.resources or JobmanagerSpec.resources,
>>> which really confused, I had modified the code of flink operator to avoid
>>> the override.
>>>
>>> Looking for your response.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>> Richard Su
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2023年12月5日 16:22，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Please see the discussion in
>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/6p5tk6obmk1qxf169so498z4vk8cg969
>>>> and the ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548
>>>>
>>>> We should follow the approach outlined there. If you are interested you
>>> are
>>>> welcome to pick up the operator ticket.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately your PR can be a large unexpected change to existing users
>>> so
>>>> we should not add it.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Gyula
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:05 AM 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native, Despite
>>>>> setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that these
>>> limits
>>>>> and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and TaskManager
>>> (TM)
>>>>> pod deployment.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which introduced
>>>>> almost the same questions that I encountered.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should put priority
>>>>> on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
>>>>>
>>>>> But this need some discussion in our community, because it related some
>>>>> scenarios:
>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the memory of the
>>>>> Flink main container to be larger than the process size of Flink, I
>>> cannot
>>>>> directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor, this will
>>>>> cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
>>>>> If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to use limit
>>>>> actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of the limit,
>>>>> which cannot be modified.
>>>>> In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull request
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
>>>>>
>>>>> This code is very simple and just need someone to review, this pr can be
>>>>> cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would appreciate any feedback on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink project.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> chaoran.su
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Posted by "richard.su" <ri...@gmail.com>.
Thank you for your time, Gyula, I have more question about Flink-33548, we can have more discussion about this and make progress:
1. I agree with you about declaring resources in FlinkDeployment resource sections. But Flink Operator will override the “jobmanager.memory.process.size” and "taskmanager.memory.process.size", despite I have set these configuration or not in flink configuration. If user had configured all memory attributes, the override will leads to error as the overall computation is error.
the code of override is in FlinkConfigManager.class in buildFrom method, which apply to JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
2. If I modified the code of override, I will still encounter this issue of FLINK-24150, because I only modified the code of flink operator but not flink-kubernetes package, so I will make a pod resources like (cpu:1c memory:1g) and container resource to be (cpu:1c, memory 850m), because I already set jobmanager.memory.process.size to 850m.
3. because of there two point, we need to make the podTemplate have higher priority. Otherwise we can refactor the code of flink operator, which should import something new configuration to support the native mode.
I think it will be better to import some configuration, which FlinkConfigManager.class can override it using the resource of JobmanagerSpec and TaskManagerSpec.
When it deep into the code flink-kubernetes package, we using these new configuration as the final result of containers resources.
Thanks for your time.
Richard Su
> 2023年12月5日 16:45，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> As you can see in the jira ticket there hasn't been any progress, nobody
> started to work on this yet.
>
> I personally don't think it's confusing to declare resources in the
> FlinkDeployment resource sections. It's well documented and worked very
> well so far for most users.
> This is pretty common practice for kubernetes.
>
> Cheers,
> Gyula
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:35 AM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Gyula, is there had any progress in FLINK-33548? I would like to join
>> the discussion but I haven't seen any discussion in the url.
>>
>> I also make flinkdeployment by flink operator, which indeed will override
>> the process size by TaskmanagerSpec.resources or JobmanagerSpec.resources,
>> which really confused, I had modified the code of flink operator to avoid
>> the override.
>>
>> Looking for your response.
>>
>> Thank you.
>> Richard Su
>>
>>
>>> 2023年12月5日 16:22，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Please see the discussion in
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/6p5tk6obmk1qxf169so498z4vk8cg969
>>> and the ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548
>>>
>>> We should follow the approach outlined there. If you are interested you
>> are
>>> welcome to pick up the operator ticket.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately your PR can be a large unexpected change to existing users
>> so
>>> we should not add it.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Gyula
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:05 AM 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native, Despite
>>>> setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that these
>> limits
>>>> and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and TaskManager
>> (TM)
>>>> pod deployment.
>>>>
>>>> I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which introduced
>>>> almost the same questions that I encountered.
>>>>
>>>> I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should put priority
>>>> on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
>>>>
>>>> But this need some discussion in our community, because it related some
>>>> scenarios:
>>>> If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the memory of the
>>>> Flink main container to be larger than the process size of Flink, I
>> cannot
>>>> directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor, this will
>>>> cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
>>>> If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to use limit
>>>> actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of the limit,
>>>> which cannot be modified.
>>>> In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull request
>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
>>>>
>>>> This code is very simple and just need someone to review, this pr can be
>>>> cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate any feedback on this.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink project.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> chaoran.su
>>
>>
Re: Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Posted by Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com>.
As you can see in the jira ticket there hasn't been any progress, nobody
started to work on this yet.
I personally don't think it's confusing to declare resources in the
FlinkDeployment resource sections. It's well documented and worked very
well so far for most users.
This is pretty common practice for kubernetes.
Cheers,
Gyula
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:35 AM richard.su <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Gyula, is there had any progress in FLINK-33548? I would like to join
> the discussion but I haven't seen any discussion in the url.
>
> I also make flinkdeployment by flink operator, which indeed will override
> the process size by TaskmanagerSpec.resources or JobmanagerSpec.resources,
> which really confused, I had modified the code of flink operator to avoid
> the override.
>
> Looking for your response.
>
> Thank you.
> Richard Su
>
>
> > 2023年12月5日 16:22，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Please see the discussion in
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/6p5tk6obmk1qxf169so498z4vk8cg969
> > and the ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548
> >
> > We should follow the approach outlined there. If you are interested you
> are
> > welcome to pick up the operator ticket.
> >
> > Unfortunately your PR can be a large unexpected change to existing users
> so
> > we should not add it.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Gyula
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:05 AM 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello everyone,
> >>
> >> I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native, Despite
> >> setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that these
> limits
> >> and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and TaskManager
> (TM)
> >> pod deployment.
> >>
> >> I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which introduced
> >> almost the same questions that I encountered.
> >>
> >> I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should put priority
> >> on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
> >>
> >> But this need some discussion in our community, because it related some
> >> scenarios:
> >> If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the memory of the
> >> Flink main container to be larger than the process size of Flink, I
> cannot
> >> directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor, this will
> >> cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
> >> If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to use limit
> >> actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of the limit,
> >> which cannot be modified.
> >> In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull request
> >> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
> >>
> >> This code is very simple and just need someone to review, this pr can be
> >> cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
> >>
> >>
> >> I would appreciate any feedback on this.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink project.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> chaoran.su
>
>
Re: Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Posted by "richard.su" <ri...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Gyula, is there had any progress in FLINK-33548? I would like to join the discussion but I haven't seen any discussion in the url.
I also make flinkdeployment by flink operator, which indeed will override the process size by TaskmanagerSpec.resources or JobmanagerSpec.resources, which really confused, I had modified the code of flink operator to avoid the override.
Looking for your response.
Thank you.
Richard Su
> 2023年12月5日 16:22，Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> 写道：
>
> Hi!
>
> Please see the discussion in
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/6p5tk6obmk1qxf169so498z4vk8cg969
> and the ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548
>
> We should follow the approach outlined there. If you are interested you are
> welcome to pick up the operator ticket.
>
> Unfortunately your PR can be a large unexpected change to existing users so
> we should not add it.
>
> Cheers,
> Gyula
>
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:05 AM 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native, Despite
>> setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that these limits
>> and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and TaskManager (TM)
>> pod deployment.
>>
>> I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which introduced
>> almost the same questions that I encountered.
>>
>> I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should put priority
>> on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
>>
>> But this need some discussion in our community, because it related some
>> scenarios:
>> If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the memory of the
>> Flink main container to be larger than the process size of Flink, I cannot
>> directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor, this will
>> cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
>> If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to use limit
>> actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of the limit,
>> which cannot be modified.
>> In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull request
>> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
>>
>> This code is very simple and just need someone to review, this pr can be
>> cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
>>
>>
>> I would appreciate any feedback on this.
>>
>> Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink project.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> chaoran.su
Re: Discussion: [FLINK-24150] Support to configure cpu resource request and limit in pod template
Posted by Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com>.
Hi!
Please see the discussion in
https://lists.apache.org/thread/6p5tk6obmk1qxf169so498z4vk8cg969
and the ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-33548
We should follow the approach outlined there. If you are interested you are
welcome to pick up the operator ticket.
Unfortunately your PR can be a large unexpected change to existing users so
we should not add it.
Cheers,
Gyula
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:05 AM 苏超腾 <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I've encountered an issue while using flink kubernetes native, Despite
> setting resource limits in the pod template, it appears that these limits
> and requests are not considered during JobManager(JM) and TaskManager (TM)
> pod deployment.
>
> I find the a issue had opened in jira FLINK-24150, which introduced
> almost the same questions that I encountered.
>
> I agrees that if user had provided pod templates, we should put priority
> on it higher than flink calculated from configuration.
>
> But this need some discussion in our community, because it related some
> scenarios:
> If I want to create a pod with Graranted QoS and want the memory of the
> Flink main container to be larger than the process size of Flink, I cannot
> directly modify podTemplate (although we can use limit factor, this will
> cause the QoS to change from Graranted to Burstable)
> If I want to create a pod with Burstable QoS, I don't want to use limit
> actor and want to directly configure the request to be 50% of the limit,
> which cannot be modified.
> In order to meet these scenarios, I had committed a pull request
> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/23872
>
> This code is very simple and just need someone to review, this pr can be
> cherry pick to other old version, which will be helpful.
>
>
> I would appreciate any feedback on this.
>
> Thank you for your time and contributions to the Flink project.
>
> Thank you,
> chaoran.su