flink-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Multiple restarts of Local Cluster
Date Wed, 02 Sep 2015 16:55:50 GMT
You can always shut down a cluster manually (via shutdown()) and if the JVM
simply exists, all is well as well. Crucial cleanup is in shutdown hooks.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Till Rohrmann <till.rohrmann@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If I'm not mistaken, then the cluster should be properly terminated when
> it gets garbage collected. Thus, also when the main method exits.
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Sachin Goel <sachingoel0101@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If I'm right, all Tests use either the MultipleProgramTestBase or
>> JavaProgramTestBase​. Those shut down the cluster explicitly anyway.
>> I will make sure if this is the case.
>>
>> Regards
>> Sachin
>>
>> -- Sachin Goel
>> Computer Science, IIT Delhi
>> m. +91-9871457685
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrmann@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe we can create a single PlanExecutor for the LocalEnvironment
>>> which is used when calling execute. This of course entails that we
>>> don’t call stop on the LocalCluster. For cases where the program exits
>>> after calling execute, this should be fine because all resources will then
>>> be released anyway. It might matter for the test execution where maven
>>> reuses the JVMs and where the LocalFlinkMiniCluster won’t be garbage
>>> collected right away. You could try it out and see what happens.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Till
>>> ​
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrmann@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh sorry, then I got the wrong context. I somehow thought it was about
>>>> test cases because I read `MultipleProgramTestBase` etc. Sorry my bad.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Sachin Goel <sachingoel0101@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was under the impression that the @AfterClass annotation can only be
>>>>> used in test classes.
>>>>> Even so, the idea is that a user program running in the IDE should not
>>>>> be starting up the cluster several times [my primary concern is the
>>>>> addition of the persist operator], and we certainly cannot ask the user
to
>>>>> terminate the cluster after execution, while in local mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Sachin Goel
>>>>> Computer Science, IIT Delhi
>>>>> m. +91-9871457685
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrmann@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is it not possible to shut down the local cluster? Can’t you
shut
>>>>>> it down in the @AfterClass method?
>>>>>> ​
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Sachin Goel <sachingoel0101@gmail.com
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. That will work too. However, then it isn't possible to shut
>>>>>>> down the local cluster. [Is it necessary to do so or does it
shut down
>>>>>>> automatically when the program exists? I'm not entirely sure.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Sachin Goel
>>>>>>> Computer Science, IIT Delhi
>>>>>>> m. +91-9871457685
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have a look at some other tests, like the checkpointing tests.
They
>>>>>>>> start one cluster manually and keep it running. They connect
against it
>>>>>>>> using the remote environment ("localhost",
>>>>>>>> miniCluster.getJobManagerRpcPort()).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That works nicely...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Sachin Goel <
>>>>>>>> sachingoel0101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>>> While using LocalEnvironment, in case the program triggers
>>>>>>>>> execution several times, the {{LocalFlinkMiniCluster}}
is started as many
>>>>>>>>> times. This can consume a lot of time in setting up and
tearing down the
>>>>>>>>> cluster. Further, this hinders with a new functionality
I'm working on
>>>>>>>>> based on persisted results.
>>>>>>>>> One potential solution could be to follow the methodology
in
>>>>>>>>> `MultipleProgramsTestBase`. The user code then would
have to reside in a
>>>>>>>>> fixed function name, instead of the main method. Or is
that too cumbersome?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Sachin
>>>>>>>>> -- Sachin Goel
>>>>>>>>> Computer Science, IIT Delhi
>>>>>>>>> m. +91-9871457685
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message