I just re-read the KIP. Overall I am +1 as well.
Some minor comments (also apply to the Google design doc): 1) As 2.4 was release, references should be updated to 2.5. 2) About the upgrade path, the KIP says: 2a) > Broker must be upgraded to 2.4 first. This means the > `inter.broker.protocol.version` (IBP) has to be set to the latest. Any > produce request with higher version will automatically get fenced because of > no support. From my understanding, this is not correct? After a broker is updated to the new binaries, it should accept new requests, even if IBP was not bumped yet? 2b) About the two rolling bounces for KS apps and the statement > one should never allow task producer and thread producer under the same > application group In the second rolling bounce, we might actually mix both (ie, per-task and per-thread producers) but this is fine as explained in the KIP. The only case we cannot allow is, old per-task producers (without consumer generation fencing) to be mixed with per-thread producers (that rely solely on consumer generation fencing). Does this sound correct? 3) We should also document how users can use KS 2.5 applications against older brokers -- for this case, we need to stay on per-task producers and cannot use the new fencing mechanism. Currently, the KIP only describe a single way how users could make this work: by setting (and keeping) UPGRADE_FROM config to 2.4 (what might not be an ideal solution and might also not be clear by itself that people would need to do this)? -Matthias On 9/18/19 4:41 PM, Boyang Chen wrote: > Bump this thread to see if someone could also review! > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 5:00 PM Boyang Chen <reluctanthero...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thank you Jason! Addressed the comments. >> >> Thank you Guozhang for explaining. I will document the timeout setting >> reasoning in the design doc. >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:49 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 6:33 PM Boyang Chen <reluctanthero...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Guozhang, I have polished the design doc to make it sync with >>>> current KIP. As for overriding default timeout values, I guess it's >>> already >>>> stated in the KIP to set txn timeout to 10s, are you suggesting we >>> should >>>> also put down this recommendation on the KIP for non-stream EOS users? >>>> >>>> My comment is not for changing any produce / consumer default config >>> values, but for the Streams configs, to make sure that our >>> overridden config values respect the above rules. That is, we check the >>> actual value used in the config if they are ever overridden by users, and >>> if the above were not true we can log a warning that it may be risky to >>> encounter some unnecessary rebalances. >>> >>> Again, this is not something we need to include in the KIP since it is not >>> part of public APIs, just to emphasize that the internal implementation >>> can >>> have some safety guard like this. >>> >>> Guozhang >>> >>> >>> >>>> Boyang >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 8:43 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Boyang, >>>>> >>>>> Just realized one thing about timeout configurations that we should >>>>> consider including in this KIP as well: >>>>> >>>>> 1) In Producer we have: max.block.ms (default value 60sec), >>>>> request.timeout >>>>> (30sec), delivery.timeout.ms (120sec), transaction.timeout (60sec) >>>>> 2) In Consumer we have: session.timeout (10sec), request.timeout >>> (30sec), >>>>> default.api.timeout.ms (60sec). >>>>> >>>>> Within a transaction (i.e. after we've beginTxn), we could potentially >>>> call >>>>> consumer blocking APIs that depend on default.api.timeout.ms, and >>> call >>>>> producer blocking APIs that depend on max.block.ms. Also, if the >>> user is >>>>> following a consumer->producer pattern, then it could be kicked and >>>> fenced >>>>> either by txn or by consumer group session. >>>>> >>>>> So we want to make sure that in the caller, e.g. Kafka Streams: >>>>> >>>>> 1) transaction.timeout < max.block.ms >>>>> 2) transaction.timeout < delivery.timeout.ms >>>>> 3) transaction.timeout < default.api.timeout.ms >>>>> 4) transaction.timeout ~= default.api.timeout.ms (I think this is >>>> already >>>>> mentioned in the KIP, just wanted to bring this up again) >>>>> >>>>> We do not need to override the default since not every users are >>>> following >>>>> the consumer -> producer pattern, but in cases like Streams where it >>> is >>>>> indeed the case, we should override the default values to obey the >>> above >>>>> rules. >>>>> >>>>> Guozhang >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 5:47 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Boyang, I'm +1 on the KIP. >>>>>> >>>>>> Could you also update the detailed design doc >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LhzHGeX7_Lay4xvrEXxfciuDWATjpUXQhrEIkph9qRE/edit >>>>> which >>>>>> seems a bit out-dated with the latest proposal? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Guozhang >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:45 AM Boyang Chen < >>>> reluctanthero...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to start the vote for KIP-447 >>>>>>> < >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-447%3A+Producer+scalability+for+exactly+once+semantics >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>> This is a very important step to improve Kafka Streams scalability >>> in >>>>>>> exactly-once semantics, by avoiding linearly increasing number of >>>>>>> producers >>>>>>> with topic partition increases. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Boyang >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> -- Guozhang >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- Guozhang >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- Guozhang >>> >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
