Got it, although I would still like to be aware of the actual backoff I will be using in production, having the app crash seems like an over-reaction. I don't think I have further questions :)
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 7:36 PM Sanjana Kaundinya <skaundi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Sanjana, > > Hey Boyang, > > If a user provides no config at all then as you mentioned they will be > default be able to make use of the exponential back off feature introduced > by the KIP. If the backoff.ms is overriden to 2000 ms, the lesser of > either > the max or the computed back off will be chosen, so in this case the max > will be chosen as it is 1000 ms. As Guozhang mentioned if the user > configures something like this then they would notice the behavior to not > be in line what they expect and would see the KIP + Release notes and know > to configure it to be backoff.ms < max backoff.ms. I’m not sure if its as > big of an error to reject the configuration if it’s configured like this, > as the clients could still run in either case. > > To answer your second question, we are making the dynamic backoff the > default and not allowing for static backoff (unless they set backoff.ms > > max.backof.ms, then that would in a sense be static) We will include this > information in the release notes to make sure users are aware of this > behavior change. > > Thanks, > Sanjana > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 6:37 PM Boyang Chen <reluctanthero...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hey Sanjana, > > > > my understanding with the update is that if a user provides no config at > > all, a Producer/Consumer/Admin client user would by default enjoying a > > starting backoff.ms as 100 ms and max.backoff.ms as 1000 ms? If I > already > > override the backoff.ms to 2000 ms for instance, will I be choosing the > > default max.backoff here? > > > > I guess my question would be whether we should just reject a config with > > backoff.ms > max.backoff.ms in the first place, as this looks like > > mis-configuration to me. > > > > Second question is whether we allow fallback to static backoffs if the > user > > wants to do so, or we should just ship this as an opt-in feature? > > > > Let me know your thoughts. > > > > Boyang > > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:38 AM Cheng Tan <c...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 2020, at 7:27 PM, Sanjana Kaundinya <skaundi...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Ah yes that makes sense. I’ll update the KIP to reflect this. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Sanjana > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:48 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Following the formula you have in the KIP, if it is simply: > > > >> > > > >> MIN(retry.backoff.max.ms, (retry.backoff.ms * 2**(failures - 1)) * > > > random( > > > >> 0.8, 1.2)) > > > >> > > > >> then the behavior would stay consistent at retry.backoff.max.ms. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Guozhang > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:46 PM Sanjana Kaundinya < > > skaundi...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> If that’s the case then what should we base the starting point as? > > > >>> Currently in the KIP the starting point is retry.backoff.ms and it > > > >>> exponentially goes up to retry.backoff.max.ms. If > > retry.backoff.max.ms > > > >> is > > > >>> smaller than retry.backoff.ms then that could pose a bit of a > > problem > > > >>> there right? > > > >>> > > > >>> On Mar 19, 2020, 5:44 PM -0700, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com > >, > > > >> wrote: > > > >>>> Thanks Sanjana, I did not capture the part that Jason referred to, > > so > > > >>>> that's my bad :P > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Regarding your last statement, I actually feel that instead of > take > > > the > > > >>>> larger of the two, we should respect "retry.backoff.max.ms" even > if > > > it > > > >>> is > > > >>>> smaller than "retry.backoff.ms". I do not have a very strong > > > rationale > > > >>>> except it is logically more aligned to the config names. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Guozhang > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:39 PM Sanjana Kaundinya < > > > >> skaundi...@gmail.com> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Hey Jason and Guozhang, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Jason is right, I took this inspiration from KIP-144 ( > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-144%3A+Exponential+backoff+for+broker+reconnect+attempts > > > >>>>> ) > > > >>>>> which had the same logic in order to preserve the existing > > behavior. > > > >> In > > > >>>>> this case however, if we are thinking to completely eliminate the > > > >>> static > > > >>>>> backoff behavior, we can do that and as Jason mentioned put it in > > the > > > >>>>> release notes and not add any special logic. In addition I agree > > that > > > >>> we > > > >>>>> should take the larger of the two of `retry.backoff.ms` and ` > > > >>>>> retry.backoff.max.ms`. I'll update the KIP to reflect this and > > make > > > >> it > > > >>>>> clear that the old static retry backoff is getting replaced by > the > > > >> new > > > >>>>> dynamic retry backoff. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>> Sanjana > > > >>>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Jason Gustafson < > > ja...@confluent.io> > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Hey Guozhang, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I was referring to this: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> For users who have not set retry.backoff.ms explicitly, the > > > >>> default > > > >>>>>> behavior will change so that the backoff will grow up to 1000 > ms. > > > >> For > > > >>>>> users > > > >>>>>> who have set retry.backoff.ms explicitly, the behavior will > > remain > > > >>> the > > > >>>>>> same > > > >>>>>> as they could have specific requirements. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I took this to mean that for users who have overridden ` > > > >>> retry.backoff.ms > > > >>>>> ` > > > >>>>>> to 50ms (say), we will change the default `retry.backoff.max.ms > ` > > > >> to > > > >>> 50ms > > > >>>>>> as > > > >>>>>> well in order to preserve existing backoff behavior. Is that not > > > >>> right? > > > >>>>> In > > > >>>>>> any case, I agree that we can use the maximum of the two values > as > > > >>> the > > > >>>>>> effective `retry.backoff.max.ms` to handle the case when the > > > >>> configured > > > >>>>>> value of `retry.backoff.ms` is larger than the default of 1s. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> -Jason > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:29 PM Guozhang Wang < > wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Hey Jason, > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> My understanding is a bit different here: even if user has an > > > >>> explicit > > > >>>>>>> overridden "retry.backoff.ms", the exponential mechanism still > > > >>>>> triggers > > > >>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>> the backoff would be increased till "retry.backoff.max.ms"; > and > > > >>> if the > > > >>>>>>> specified "retry.backoff.ms" is already larger than the " > > > >>>>>>> retry.backoff.max.ms", we would still take " > retry.backoff.max.ms > > > >> ". > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> So if the user does override the "retry.backoff.ms" to a value > > > >>> larger > > > >>>>>> than > > > >>>>>>> 1s and is not aware of the new config, she would be surprised > to > > > >>> see > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>>> specified value seemingly not being respected, but she could > > > >> still > > > >>>>> learn > > > >>>>>>> that afterwards by reading the release notes introducing this > KIP > > > >>>>>> anyways. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Guozhang > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:10 PM Jason Gustafson < > > > >>> ja...@confluent.io> > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Hi Sanjana, > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> The KIP looks good to me. I had just one question about the > > > >>> default > > > >>>>>>>> behavior. As I understand, if the user has specified ` > > > >>>>> retry.backoff.ms > > > >>>>>> ` > > > >>>>>>>> explicitly, then we will not apply the default max backoff. As > > > >>> such, > > > >>>>>>>> there's no way to get the benefit of this feature if you are > > > >>>>> providing > > > >>>>>> a > > > >>>>>>> ` > > > >>>>>>>> retry.backoff.ms` unless you also provide ` > > > >> retry.backoff.max.ms > > > >>> `. > > > >>>>> That > > > >>>>>>>> makes sense if you assume the user is unaware of the new > > > >>>>> configuration, > > > >>>>>>> but > > > >>>>>>>> it is surprising otherwise. Since it's not a semantic change > > > >> and > > > >>>>> since > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> default you're proposing of 1s is fairly low already, I wonder > > > >> if > > > >>>>> it's > > > >>>>>>> good > > > >>>>>>>> enough to mention the new configuration in the release notes > > > >> and > > > >>> not > > > >>>>>> add > > > >>>>>>>> any special logic. What do you think? > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> -Jason > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 1:56 PM Sanjana Kaundinya < > > > >>>>>> skaundi...@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Thank you for the comments Guozhang. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> I’ll leave this KIP out for discussion till the end of the > > > >>> week and > > > >>>>>>> then > > > >>>>>>>>> start a vote for this early next week. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sanjana > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2020, 3:38 PM -0700, Guozhang Wang < > > > >>> wangg...@gmail.com > > > >>>>>> , > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hello Sanjana, > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the proposed KIP, I think that makes a lot of > > > >>> sense -- > > > >>>>>> as > > > >>>>>>>> you > > > >>>>>>>>>> mentioned in the motivation, we've indeed seen many issues > > > >>> with > > > >>>>>>> regard > > > >>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>> the frequent retries, with bounded exponential backoff in > > > >> the > > > >>>>>>> scenario > > > >>>>>>>>>> where there's a long connectivity issue we would > > > >> effectively > > > >>>>> reduce > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>> request load by 10 given the default configs. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> For higher-level Streams client and Connect frameworks, > > > >>> today we > > > >>>>>> also > > > >>>>>>>>> have > > > >>>>>>>>>> a retry logic but that's used in a slightly different way. > > > >>> For > > > >>>>>>> example > > > >>>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>> Streams, we tend to handle the retry logic at the > > > >>> thread-level > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>> hence > > > >>>>>>>>>> very likely we'd like to change that mechanism in KIP-572 > > > >>>>> anyways. > > > >>>>>>> For > > > >>>>>>>>>> producer / consumer / admin clients, I think just applying > > > >>> this > > > >>>>>>>>> behavioral > > > >>>>>>>>>> change across these clients makes lot of sense. So I think > > > >>> can > > > >>>>> just > > > >>>>>>>> leave > > > >>>>>>>>>> the Streams / Connect out of the scope of this KIP to be > > > >>>>> addressed > > > >>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>>> separate discussions. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I do not have further comments about this KIP :) LGTM. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Guozhang > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:09 AM Sanjana Kaundinya < > > > >>>>>>>> skaundi...@gmail.com > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback Boyang. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> If there’s anyone else who has feedback regarding this > > > >> KIP, > > > >>>>> would > > > >>>>>>>>> really > > > >>>>>>>>>>> appreciate it hearing it! > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sanjana > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:38 PM Boyang Chen < > > > >>>>>> bche...@outlook.com> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds great! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________ > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Sanjana Kaundinya <skaundi...@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 5:54:35 PM > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@kafka.apache.org <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-580: Exponential Backoff for > > > >>> Kafka > > > >>>>>>>> Clients > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the explanation Boyang. One of the most > > > >> common > > > >>>>>>> problems > > > >>>>>>>>> that > > > >>>>>>>>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have in Kafka is with respect to metadata fetches. For > > > >>>>> example, > > > >>>>>>> if > > > >>>>>>>>> there > > > >>>>>>>>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a broker failure, all clients start to fetch metadata > > > >> at > > > >>> the > > > >>>>>> same > > > >>>>>>>>> time > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it often takes a while for the metadata to converge. > > > >> In a > > > >>>>> high > > > >>>>>>> load > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> cluster, there are also issues where the volume of > > > >>> metadata > > > >>>>> has > > > >>>>>>>> made > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> convergence of metadata slower. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> For this case, exponential backoff helps as it reduces > > > >>> the > > > >>>>>> retry > > > >>>>>>>>> rate and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> spaces out how often clients will retry, thereby > > > >> bringing > > > >>>>> down > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>> time > > > >>>>>>>>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> convergence. Something that Jason mentioned that would > > > >>> be a > > > >>>>>> great > > > >>>>>>>>>>> addition > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> here would be if the backoff should be “jittered” as it > > > >>> was > > > >>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>> KIP-144 > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> respect to exponential reconnect backoff. This would > > > >> help > > > >>>>>> prevent > > > >>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> clients from being synchronized on when they retry, > > > >>> thereby > > > >>>>>>> spacing > > > >>>>>>>>> out > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> number of requests being sent to the broker at the same > > > >>> time. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll add this example to the KIP and flush out more of > > > >>> the > > > >>>>>>> details > > > >>>>>>>> - > > > >>>>>>>>> so > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it’s more clear. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 2020, 1:24 PM -0700, Boyang Chen < > > > >>>>>>>>> reluctanthero...@gmail.com > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> , > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the reply Sanjana. I guess I would like to > > > >>>>>> rephrase > > > >>>>>>> my > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> question > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 and 3 as my previous response is a little bit > > > >>>>> unactionable. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> My specific point is that exponential backoff is not > > > >> a > > > >>>>> silver > > > >>>>>>>>> bullet > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should consider using it to solve known problems, > > > >>> instead > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>>> making the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> holistic changes to all clients in Kafka ecosystem. I > > > >>> do > > > >>>>> like > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> exponential backoff idea and believe this would be of > > > >>> great > > > >>>>>>>> value, > > > >>>>>>>>> but > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe we should focus on proposing some existing > > > >>> modules > > > >>>>> that > > > >>>>>>> are > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> suffering > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> from static retry, and only change them in this first > > > >>> KIP. > > > >>>>> If > > > >>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> future, some other component users believe they are > > > >>> also > > > >>>>>>>>> suffering, we > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> could get more minor KIPs to change the behavior as > > > >>> well. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Boyang > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 12:07 AM Sanjana Kaundinya < > > > >>>>>>>>>>> skaundi...@gmail.com > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback Boyang, I will revise the > > > >> KIP > > > >>>>> with > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical relations as per your suggestion. To > > > >>> address > > > >>>>>>> your > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> feedback: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Currently, with the default of 100 ms per retry > > > >>>>> backoff, > > > >>>>>>> in > > > >>>>>>>> 1 > > > >>>>>>>>>>> second > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we would have 10 retries. In the case of using an > > > >>>>>> exponential > > > >>>>>>>>>>> backoff, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have a total of 4 retries in 1 second. Thus > > > >> we > > > >>> have > > > >>>>>>> less > > > >>>>>>>>> than > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> half of > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the amount of retries in the same timeframe and can > > > >>>>> lessen > > > >>>>>>>> broker > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> pressure. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This calculation is done as following (using the > > > >>> formula > > > >>>>>> laid > > > >>>>>>>>> out in > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> KIP: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try 1 at time 0 ms, failures = 0, next retry in 100 > > > >>> ms > > > >>>>>>> (default > > > >>>>>>>>> retry > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ms > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is initially 100 ms) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try 2 at time 100 ms, failures = 1, next retry in > > > >>> 200 ms > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try 3 at time 300 ms, failures = 2, next retry in > > > >>> 400 ms > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try 4 at time 700 ms, failures = 3, next retry in > > > >>> 800 ms > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try 5 at time 1500 ms, failures = 4, next retry in > > > >>> 1000 > > > >>>>> ms > > > >>>>>>>>> (default > > > >>>>>>>>>>> max > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> retry ms is 1000 ms) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For 2 and 3, could you elaborate more about what > > > >> you > > > >>> mean > > > >>>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>>>> respect > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> client timeouts? I’m not very familiar with the > > > >>> Streams > > > >>>>>>>>> framework, so > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> would > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> love to get more insight to how that currently > > > >> works, > > > >>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>> respect to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> producer transactions, so I can appropriately > > > >> update > > > >>> the > > > >>>>>> KIP > > > >>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>> address > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> these scenarios. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 13, 2020, 7:15 PM -0700, Boyang Chen < > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reluctanthero...@gmail.com>, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP Sanjana. I think the > > > >> motivation > > > >>> is > > > >>>>>> good, > > > >>>>>>>> but > > > >>>>>>>>>>> lack > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more quantitative analysis. For instance: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. How much retries we are saving by applying the > > > >>>>>>> exponential > > > >>>>>>>>> retry > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> vs > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> static retry? There should be some mathematical > > > >>>>> relations > > > >>>>>>>>> between > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> static retry ms, the initial exponential retry > > > >> ms, > > > >>> the > > > >>>>>> max > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> exponential > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retry ms in a given time interval. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. How does this affect the client timeout? With > > > >>>>>>> exponential > > > >>>>>>>>> retry, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client shall be getting easier to timeout on a > > > >>> parent > > > >>>>>> level > > > >>>>>>>>> caller, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance stream attempts to retry initializing > > > >>> producer > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transactions > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> with > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given 5 minute interval. With exponential retry > > > >>> this > > > >>>>>>>> mechanism > > > >>>>>>>>>>> could > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience more frequent timeout which we should > > > >> be > > > >>>>>> careful > > > >>>>>>>>> with. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. With regards to #2, we should have more > > > >> detailed > > > >>>>>>> checklist > > > >>>>>>>>> of > > > >>>>>>>>>>> all > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing static retry scenarios, and adjust the > > > >>> initial > > > >>>>>>>>> exponential > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> retry > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ms to make sure we won't get easily timeout in > > > >> high > > > >>>>> level > > > >>>>>>> due > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>>>> too > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> few > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boyang > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 4:38 PM Sanjana > > > >> Kaundinya < > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> skaundi...@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve written a KIP about introducing > > > >> exponential > > > >>>>>> backoff > > > >>>>>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Kafka > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clients. Would appreciate any feedback on this. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-580%3A+Exponential+Backoff+for+Kafka+Clients > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanjana > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>> -- Guozhang > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -- > > > >>>> -- Guozhang > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> -- Guozhang > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
