beam-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com>
Subject Re: [Discuss] Upgrade story for Beam's execution engines
Date Thu, 13 Sep 2018 12:39:14 GMT
The ideal long-term solution is, as Romain mentions, pushing the
runner-specific code up to be maintained by each runner with a stable API
to use to talk to Beam. Unfortunately, I think we're still a long way from
having this Stable API, or having the clout for non-beam-developers to
maintain these bindings externally (though hopefully we'll get there).

In the short term, we're stuck with either hurting users that want to stick
with Flink 1.5, hurting users that want to upgrade to Flink 1.6, or
supporting both. Is Beam's interaction with Flink such that we can't simply
have separate targets linking the same Beam code against one or the other?
(I.e. are code changes needed?) If so, we'll probably need a
flink-runner-1.5 module, a flink-runner-1.6, and a flink-runner-common
module. Or we hope that all users are happy with 1.5 until a certain point
in time when they all want to simultaneously jump to 1.6 and Beam at the
same time. Maybe that's enough in the short term, but longer term we need a
more sustainable solution.


On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:13 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> Isnt the issue "only" that beam has this code instead of engines?
>
> Assuming beam runner facing api is stable - which must be the case anyway
> - and that each engine has its integration (flink-beam instead of
> beam-runners-flink), then this issue disappears by construction.
>
> It also has the advantage to have a better maintenance.
>
> Side note: this is what happent which arquillian, originally the community
> did all adapters impl then each vendor took it back in house to make it
> better.
>
> Any way to work in that direction maybe?
>
> Le jeu. 13 sept. 2018 00:49, Thomas Weise <thw@apache.org> a écrit :
>
>> The main problem here is that users are forced to upgrade infrastructure
>> to obtain new features in Beam, even when those features actually don't
>> require such changes. As an example, another update to Flink 1.6.0 was
>> proposed (without supporting new functionality in Beam) and we already know
>> that it breaks compatibility (again).
>>
>> I think that upgrading to a Flink X.Y.0 version isn't a good idea to
>> start with. But besides that, if we want to grow adoption, then we need to
>> focus on stability and delivering improvements to Beam without disrupting
>> users.
>>
>> In the specific case, ideally the surface of Flink would be backward
>> compatible, allowing us to stick to a minimum version and be able to submit
>> pipelines to Flink endpoints of higher versions. Some work in that
>> direction is underway (like versioning the REST API). FYI, lowest common
>> version is what most projects that depend on Hadoop 2.x follow.
>>
>> Since Beam with Flink 1.5.x client won't talk to Flink 1.6 and there are
>> code changes required to make it compile, we would need to come up with a
>> more involved strategy to support multiple Flink versions. Till then, I
>> would prefer we favor existing users over short lived experiments, which
>> would mean stick with 1.5.x and not support 1.6.0.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:15 PM Lukasz Cwik <lcwik@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As others have already suggested, I also believe LTS releases is the
>>> best we can do as a community right now until portability allows us to
>>> decouple what a user writes with and how it runs (the SDK and the SDK
>>> environment) from the runner (job service + shared common runner libs +
>>> Flink/Spark/Dataflow/Apex/Samza/...).
>>>
>>> Dataflow would be highly invested in having the appropriate tooling
>>> within Apache Beam to support multiple SDK versions against a runner. This
>>> in turn would allow people to use any SDK with any runner and as Robert had
>>> mentioned, certain optimizations and features would be disabled depending
>>> on the capabilities of the runner and the capabilities of the SDK.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:38 AM Robert Bradshaw <robertwb@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The target audience is people who want to use the latest Beam but do
>>>> not want to use the latest version of the runner, right?
>>>>
>>>> I think this will be somewhat (though not entirely) addressed by Beam
>>>> LTS releases, where those not wanting to upgrade the runner at least have
a
>>>> well-supported version of Beam. In the long term, we have the division
>>>>
>>>>     Runner <-> BeamRunnerSpecificCode <-> CommonBeamRunnerLibs
<-> SDK.
>>>>
>>>> (which applies to the job submission as well as execution).
>>>>
>>>> Insomuch as the BeamRunnerSpecificCode uses the public APIs of the
>>>> runner, hopefully upgrading the runner for minor versions should be a
>>>> no-op, and we can target the lowest version of the runner that makes sense,
>>>> allowing the user to link against higher versions at his or her discretion.
>>>> We should provide built targets that allow this. For major versions, it may
>>>> make sense to have two distinct BeamRunnerSpecificCode libraries (which may
>>>> or may not share some common code). I hope these wrappers are not too
>>>> thick.
>>>>
>>>> There is a tight coupling at the BeamRunnerSpecificCode <->
>>>> CommonBeamRunnerLibs layer, but hopefully the bulk of the code lives on the
>>>> right hand side and can be updated as needed independent of the runner.
>>>> There may be code of the form "if the runner supports X, do this fast path,
>>>> otherwise, do this slow path (or reject the pipeline).
>>>>
>>>> I hope the CommonBeamRunnerLibs <-> SDK coupling is fairly loose, to
>>>> the point that one could use SDKs from different versions of Beam (or even
>>>> developed outside of Beam) with an older/newer runner. We may need to add
>>>> versioning to the Fn/Runner/Job API itself to support this. Right now of
>>>> course we're still in a pre-1.0, rapid-development phase wrt this API.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:10 PM Etienne Chauchot <echauchot@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Max,
>>>>>
>>>>> I totally agree with your points especially the users priorities
>>>>> (stick to the already working version) , and the need to leverage important
>>>>> new features. It is indeed a difficult balance to find .
>>>>>
>>>>> I can talk for a part I know: for the Spark runner, the aim was to
>>>>> support Dataset native spark API (in place of RDD). For that we needed
to
>>>>> upgrade to spark 2.x (and we will probably leverage Beam Row as well).
>>>>> But such an upgrade is a good amount of work which makes it difficult
>>>>> to commit on a schedule such as "if there is a major new feature on an
>>>>> execution engine that we want to leverage, then the upgrade in Beam will
be
>>>>> done within x months".
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding your point on portability : decoupling SDK from runner with
>>>>> runner harness and SDK harness might make pipeline authors work easy
>>>>> regarding pipeline maintenance. But, still, if we upgrade runner libs,
then
>>>>> the users might have their runner harness not work with their engine
>>>>> version.
>>>>> If such SDK/runner decoupling is 100% functional, then we could
>>>>> imaging having multiple runner harnesses shipping different versions
of the
>>>>> runner libs to solve this problem.
>>>>> But we would need to support more than one version of the runner libs.
>>>>> We chose not to do this on spark runner.
>>>>>
>>>>> WDYT ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>> Etienne
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le mardi 11 septembre 2018 à 15:42 +0200, Maximilian Michels a écrit
:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Beamers,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the light of the discussion about Beam LTS releases, I'd like to kick
>>>>>
>>>>> off a thread about how often we upgrade the execution engine of each
>>>>>
>>>>> Runner. By upgrade, I mean major/minor versions which typically break
>>>>>
>>>>> the binary compatibility of Beam pipelines.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For the Flink Runner, we try to track the latest stable version. Some
>>>>>
>>>>> users reported that this can be problematic, as it requires them to
>>>>>
>>>>> potentially upgrade their Flink cluster with a new version of Beam.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  From a developer's perspective, it makes sense to migrate as early as
>>>>>
>>>>> possible to the newest version of the execution engine, e.g. to leverage
>>>>>
>>>>> the newest features. From a user's perspective, you don't care about
the
>>>>>
>>>>> latest features if your use case still works with Beam.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have to please both parties. So I'd suggest to upgrade the execution
>>>>>
>>>>> engine whenever necessary (e.g. critical new features, end of life of
>>>>>
>>>>> current version). On the other hand, the upcoming Beam LTS releases will
>>>>>
>>>>> contain a longer-supported version.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we don't need to discuss much about this but I wanted to hear what
>>>>>
>>>>> the community has to say about it. Particularly, I'd be interested in
>>>>>
>>>>> how the other Runner authors intend to do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I understand, with the portability being stable, we could
>>>>>
>>>>> theoretically upgrade the SDK without upgrading the runtime components.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would allow us to defer the upgrade for a longer time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Max
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

Mime
View raw message