Re: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-943: Add independent "offset.storage.segment.bytes" for connect-distributed.properties

2023-08-18 Thread Sagar
Hey Hudeqi, I took some time to read through the PR link as well where you and Chris had an informative discussion. I think even over there and in this discussion thread, it seems to me that the consensus is to reduce the scope of the KIP to reduce the default value of segment.bytes config for

Re: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-943: Add independent "offset.storage.segment.bytes" for connect-distributed.properties

2023-08-14 Thread hudeqi
bump this discuss thread. best, hudeqi hudeqi 16120...@bjtu.edu.cn写道: > Sorry for not getting email reminders and ignoring your reply for getting > back so late, Yash Mayya, Greg Harris, Sagar. > > Thank you for your thoughts and suggestions, I learned a lot, I will give my > thoughts and

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-943: Add independent "offset.storage.segment.bytes" for connect-distributed.properties

2023-08-08 Thread hudeqi
Sorry for not getting email reminders and ignoring your reply for getting back so late, Yash Mayya, Greg Harris, Sagar. Thank you for your thoughts and suggestions, I learned a lot, I will give my thoughts and answers in a comprehensive way: 1. The default configuration of 50MB is the online

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-943: Add independent "offset.storage.segment.bytes" for connect-distributed.properties

2023-07-21 Thread Sagar
Hey Hudeqi, Thanks for the KIP! After reading the KIP and the comments by Yash and Greg I agree with these aspects: 1) While I agree that having a high value for segment.btes config can lead to higher startup times, we don't necessarily need to expose a separate config for it(as Yash suggested).

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-943: Add independent "offset.storage.segment.bytes" for connect-distributed.properties

2023-07-13 Thread Greg Harris
Hey hudeqi, Thanks for the KIP! I did not know about the existing segment.bytes default value, and it does seem rather high in the context of the Connect internal topics. If I think about the segment.size as a "minimum per-partition data transfer on startup", 1GB is certainly not appropriate for

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-943: Add independent "offset.storage.segment.bytes" for connect-distributed.properties

2023-07-06 Thread Yash Mayya
Also, just adding to the above point - we don't necessarily need to explicitly add a new worker configuration right? Instead, we could potentially just use the new proposed default value internally which can be overridden by users through setting a value for "offset.storage.segment.bytes" (via the

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-943: Add independent "offset.storage.segment.bytes" for connect-distributed.properties

2023-07-06 Thread Yash Mayya
Hi hudeqi, Thanks for the KIP! Just to clarify - since KIP-605 ( https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-605%3A+Expand+Connect+Worker+Internal+Topic+Settings) already allows configuring "segment.bytes" for the Connect cluster's offsets topic via a worker configuration

Re:[DISCUSS] KIP-943: Add independent "offset.storage.segment.bytes" for connect-distributed.properties

2023-07-03 Thread hudeqi
Is anyone following this KIP? Bump this thread.