Hi Vishal,

you can also keep the same cluster id when cancelling a job with savepoint and then resuming a new job from it. Terminating the job should clean up all state in Zk.


On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 11:26 PM Vishal Santoshi <vishal.santoshi@gmail.com> wrote:
In one case however, we do want to retain the same cluster id ( think ingress on k8s  and thus SLAs with external touch points ) but it is essentially a new job ( added an incompatible change but at the interface level it retains the same contract ) , the only way seems to be to remove the chroot/subcontext from ZK , and relaunch , essentially deleting ant vestiges of the previous incarnation. And that is fine if that is indeed the process. 

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 7:58 AM Till Rohrmann <trohrmann@apache.org> wrote:
If you keep the same cluster id, the upgraded job should pick up checkpoints from the completed checkpoint store. However, I would recommend to take a savepoint and resume from this savepoint because then you can also specify that you allow non restored state, for example.


On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 11:20 AM Vishal Santoshi <vishal.santoshi@gmail.com> wrote:
Is the rationale of using a jobID 000000* also roughly the same. As in a Flink job cluster is a single job and thus a single job id suffices ?  I am more wondering about the case when we are doing a compatible changes to a job and want to resume ( given we are in HA mode and thus have a chroot/subcontext on ZK for the job cluster ) ,  it would make no sense to give a brand new job id ? 

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:42 AM Till Rohrmann <trohrmann@apache.org> wrote:
Hi Sergey,

the rationale why we are using a K8s job instead of a deployment is that a Flink job cluster should terminate after it has successfully executed the Flink job. This is unlike a session cluster which should run forever and for which a K8s deployment would be better suited.

If in your use case a K8s deployment would better work, then I would suggest to change the `job-cluster-job.yaml` accordingly.


On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 4:12 PM Sergey Belikov <belikov.sergey@gmail.com> wrote:

my team is currently experimenting with Flink running in Kubernetes (job cluster setup). And we found out that with JobManager being deployed as "Job" we can't just simply update certain values in job's yaml, e.g. spec.template.spec.containers.image (https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/issues/48388#issuecomment-319493817). This causes certain troubles in our CI/CD pipelines so we are thinking about using "Deployment" instead of "Job". 

With that being said I'm wondering what was the motivation behind using "Job" resource for deploying JobManager? And are there any pitfalls related to using Deployment and not Job for JobManager?

Thank you in advance.
Best regards,
Sergey Belikov