You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flink.apache.org by Galen Warren <ga...@cvillewarrens.com> on 2022/03/18 20:43:27 UTC

proposal to allow configuration of Statefun exponential backoff

Currently, when the execution of a stateful function fails, the call is
retried using an exponential backoff scheme -- the initial delay is 10ms
(original sync client) or 2ms (async Netty client), and it doubles on every
subsequent failure, without limit, until the call succeeds or its budgeted
time to complete expires.

It would be useful to be able to configure this, i.e. to supply an
initial retry delay interval and to supply a max retry interval (i.e. not
to be unbounded as it is now).

Would you be interested in a contribution along these lines? I've
implemented this locally for the Netty client; honestly, I don't need it
for the older, synchronous client and would be fine just doing it for the
newer, async one, but I could also implement it for the sync client as well.

Please let me know, thanks.

Re: proposal to allow configuration of Statefun exponential backoff

Posted by Galen Warren <ga...@cvillewarrens.com>.
No rush, but I just wanted to make sure this didn't fall through the
cracks. Thanks!

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 4:43 PM Galen Warren <ga...@cvillewarrens.com>
wrote:

> Currently, when the execution of a stateful function fails, the call is
> retried using an exponential backoff scheme -- the initial delay is 10ms
> (original sync client) or 2ms (async Netty client), and it doubles on every
> subsequent failure, without limit, until the call succeeds or its budgeted
> time to complete expires.
>
> It would be useful to be able to configure this, i.e. to supply an
> initial retry delay interval and to supply a max retry interval (i.e. not
> to be unbounded as it is now).
>
> Would you be interested in a contribution along these lines? I've
> implemented this locally for the Netty client; honestly, I don't need it
> for the older, synchronous client and would be fine just doing it for the
> newer, async one, but I could also implement it for the sync client as well.
>
> Please let me know, thanks.
>
>
>