Need a clarification about removing a stateful operator

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Need a clarification about removing a stateful operator

Tony Wei
Hi all,

I'm confused about the description in documentation. [1]

  • Removing a stateful operator: The state of the removed operator is lost unless
    another operator takes it over. When starting the upgraded application, you have
    to explicitly agree to discard the state.
Does that mean if I take a full snapshot (e.g. savepoint) after restoring by explicitly agreeing to
discard the state, then the state won't exist in that snapshot? Or does it just mean ignore the
state but the state still exist forever, unless I explicitly purge that state by using state operator?

And could this behavior differ between different state backend (Memory, FS, RocksDB) ?

Many thanks,
Tony Wei

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Need a clarification about removing a stateful operator

Chesnay Schepler
The state won't exist in the snapshot.

On 17.08.2018 04:38, Tony Wei wrote:
Hi all,

I'm confused about the description in documentation. [1]

  • Removing a stateful operator: The state of the removed operator is lost unless
    another operator takes it over. When starting the upgraded application, you have
    to explicitly agree to discard the state.
Does that mean if I take a full snapshot (e.g. savepoint) after restoring by explicitly agreeing to
discard the state, then the state won't exist in that snapshot? Or does it just mean ignore the
state but the state still exist forever, unless I explicitly purge that state by using state operator?

And could this behavior differ between different state backend (Memory, FS, RocksDB) ?

Many thanks,
Tony Wei


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Need a clarification about removing a stateful operator

Tony Wei
Hi Chesnay,

Thanks for your quick reply. I have another question. Will the state, which is ignored, be transported
to TMs from DFS? Or will it be detected by JM's checkpoint coordinator and only those states reuired
by operators be transported to each TM?

Best,
Tony Wei

2018-08-17 14:38 GMT+08:00 Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>:
The state won't exist in the snapshot.


On 17.08.2018 04:38, Tony Wei wrote:
Hi all,

I'm confused about the description in documentation. [1]

  • Removing a stateful operator: The state of the removed operator is lost unless
    another operator takes it over. When starting the upgraded application, you have
    to explicitly agree to discard the state.
Does that mean if I take a full snapshot (e.g. savepoint) after restoring by explicitly agreeing to
discard the state, then the state won't exist in that snapshot? Or does it just mean ignore the
state but the state still exist forever, unless I explicitly purge that state by using state operator?

And could this behavior differ between different state backend (Memory, FS, RocksDB) ?

Many thanks,
Tony Wei



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Need a clarification about removing a stateful operator

Stefan Richter
Hi,

it will not be transported. The JM does the state assignment to create the deployment information for all tasks. If will just exclude the state for operators that are not present. So in your next checkpoints they will no longer be contained.

Best,
Stefan

Am 17.08.2018 um 09:26 schrieb Tony Wei <[hidden email]>:

Hi Chesnay,

Thanks for your quick reply. I have another question. Will the state, which is ignored, be transported
to TMs from DFS? Or will it be detected by JM's checkpoint coordinator and only those states reuired
by operators be transported to each TM?

Best,
Tony Wei

2018-08-17 14:38 GMT+08:00 Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>:
The state won't exist in the snapshot.


On 17.08.2018 04:38, Tony Wei wrote:
Hi all,

I'm confused about the description in documentation. [1]

  • Removing a stateful operator: The state of the removed operator is lost unless
    another operator takes it over. When starting the upgraded application, you have
    to explicitly agree to discard the state.
Does that mean if I take a full snapshot (e.g. savepoint) after restoring by explicitly agreeing to
discard the state, then the state won't exist in that snapshot? Or does it just mean ignore the
state but the state still exist forever, unless I explicitly purge that state by using state operator?

And could this behavior differ between different state backend (Memory, FS, RocksDB) ?

Many thanks,
Tony Wei




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Need a clarification about removing a stateful operator

Tony Wei
Hi Stefan,

Thanks for your detailed explanation.

Best,
Tony Wei

2018-08-17 15:56 GMT+08:00 Stefan Richter <[hidden email]>:
Hi,

it will not be transported. The JM does the state assignment to create the deployment information for all tasks. If will just exclude the state for operators that are not present. So in your next checkpoints they will no longer be contained.

Best,
Stefan


Am 17.08.2018 um 09:26 schrieb Tony Wei <[hidden email]>:

Hi Chesnay,

Thanks for your quick reply. I have another question. Will the state, which is ignored, be transported
to TMs from DFS? Or will it be detected by JM's checkpoint coordinator and only those states reuired
by operators be transported to each TM?

Best,
Tony Wei

2018-08-17 14:38 GMT+08:00 Chesnay Schepler <[hidden email]>:
The state won't exist in the snapshot.


On 17.08.2018 04:38, Tony Wei wrote:
Hi all,

I'm confused about the description in documentation. [1]

  • Removing a stateful operator: The state of the removed operator is lost unless
    another operator takes it over. When starting the upgraded application, you have
    to explicitly agree to discard the state.
Does that mean if I take a full snapshot (e.g. savepoint) after restoring by explicitly agreeing to
discard the state, then the state won't exist in that snapshot? Or does it just mean ignore the
state but the state still exist forever, unless I explicitly purge that state by using state operator?

And could this behavior differ between different state backend (Memory, FS, RocksDB) ?

Many thanks,
Tony Wei