-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.8k
[FLINK-33392][docs] Add the documentation pages for balanced tasks scheduling. #27128
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
56086b3 to
583dd4b
Compare
|
The CH edition page will added a copy in the corresponding location after the EN edition page is ready. |
docs/content/docs/deployment/tasks-scheduling/balanced_tasks_scheduling.md
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/content/docs/deployment/tasks-scheduling/balanced_tasks_scheduling.md
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/content/docs/deployment/tasks-scheduling/balanced_tasks_scheduling.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
583dd4b to
811f8e4
Compare
811f8e4 to
4dbffc9
Compare
|
|
||
| ## Background | ||
|
|
||
| When the parallelism of all vertices within a Flink streaming job is inconsistent, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the situation this help in is when the parallelism of a vertex is less in the subsequent vertex in the job. Not when parallelism is inconsistent (which could mean that we have 2 kafka sources with different number of partitions - I guess this change would not effect them). Could this be a badly configured job, if not it would be useful to detail when this can occur.
Are there other topologies that this effects?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
which could mean that we have 2 kafka sources with different number of partitions - I guess this change would not effect them
This algorithm only focuses on balancing the number of tasks, and specific cases require individual discussion.
Could this be a badly configured job, if not it would be useful to detail when this can occur.
The business scenarios faced by Flink jobs are complex, so whether the configuration is reasonable depends on whether the job's performance meets the throughput requirements for processing business data.
Therefore, we cannot simply discuss whether the parallelism is properly configured.
Are there other topologies that this effects?
No, its are not.
CC @davidradl
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That makes sense: I would expand a bit around inconsistent, mentioning parallelism. The worry is that it could be read that inconsistent parallelism requires the use of this strategy, which is not always the case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@davidradl
Precise!
What about add a note item content like follows?
<span class="label label-info">Note</span> The presence of inconsistent parallelism does not imply that this strategy must be used, as this is not always the case in practice.
| resulting in a task count difference of `0` between `TaskManagers`. In contrast, the scheduling result under the default strategy, | ||
| shown in figure (h), has a task count difference of `2` between `TaskManagers`. | ||
|
|
||
| Therefore, theoretically, using this load balancing tasks scheduling strategy could effectively mitigate the issue of |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: I would remove the words "theoretically" "effectively" - I think it would make the statement stronger.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @davidradl
I removed the 'effectively' and still kept 'theoretically' for rigor.
After all, each job has unique business characteristics and load patterns, making it difficult to guarantee that no scenario exists where a flink job theoretically fits but actually causes performance degradation when enabled. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would remove the theoretically, and be explicit about the considerations. Maybe:
If you are seeing performance bottle necks of the sort described above, then using this load balancing tasks scheduling strategy can improve performance.
Be aware that you should not use this strategy, if you are not seeing these bottle necks, as you may experience performance degradation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@davidradl
Thanks
Updated as:
Therefore, if you are seeing performance bottlenecks of the sort described above,
then using this load balancing tasks scheduling strategy can improve performance.
Be aware that you should not use this strategy, if you are not seeing these bottlenecks,
as you may experience performance degradation.
a8d7f71 to
f5586b0
Compare
f5586b0 to
a84ef5d
Compare
What is the purpose of the change
[FLINK-33392][docs] Add the documentation pages for balanced tasks scheduling.
Brief change log
[FLINK-33392][docs] Add the documentation pages for balanced tasks scheduling.
Verifying this change
N.A
Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:
@Public(Evolving): (yes / no)Documentation