Hi Boyang,
Thanks for reminding me of that!
I'm not sure about the convention, I thought it would need to re-collect
votes if the KIP has changed~
Let's leave the vote thread here for 2 days, if no objection, I will take
it as approved and update the PR accordingly.
Thanks!
Feyman
------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人：Boyang Chen <[email protected]>
发送时间：2020年4月8日(星期三) 12:42
收件人：dev <[email protected]>; feyman2009 <[email protected]>
主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members in
StreamsResetter
You should already get enough votes if I'm counting correctly (Guozhang, John,
Matthias)
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 6:59 PM feyman2009 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Boyang&Matthias
I think Matthias's proposal makes sense, but we can use the admin tool for
this scenario as Boyang mentioned or follow up later, so I prefer to keep this
KIP unchanged to minimize the scope.
Calling for vote ~
Thanks!
Feyman
------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人：Boyang Chen <[email protected]>
发送时间：2020年4月8日(星期三) 02:15
收件人：dev <[email protected]>
主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members in
StreamsResetter
Hey Feyman,
I think Matthias' suggestion is optional, and we could just use admin tool
to remove single static members as well.
Boyang
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:00 AM Matthias J. Sax <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Would you mind to elaborate why we still need that
>
> Sure.
>
> For static memership, the session timeout it usually set quite high.
> This make scaling in an application tricky: if you shut down one
> instance, no rebalance would happen until `session.timeout.ms` hits.
> This is specific to Kafka Streams, because when a Kafka Stream client is
> closed, it does _not_ send a `LeaveGroupRequest`. Hence, the
> corresponding partitions would not be processed for a long time and
> thus, fall back.
>
> Given that each instance will have a unique `instance.id` provided by
> the user, we could allow users to remove the instance they want to
> decommission from the consumer group without the need to wait for
> `session.timeout.ms`.
>
> Hence, it's not an application reset scenario for which one wants to
> remove all members, but a scaling-in scenario. For dynamic membership,
> this issue usually does not occur because the `session.timeout.ms` is
> set to a fairly low value and a rebalance would happen quickly after an
> instance is decommissioned.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> As said before, we may or may not include this in this KIP. It's up to
> you if you want to address it or not.
>
>
> -Matthias
>
>
>
> On 4/7/20 7:12 AM, feyman2009 wrote:
> > Hi, Matthias
> > Thanks a lot!
> > So you do not plan so support removing a _single static_ member via
> `StreamsResetter`?
> > =>
> > Would you mind to elaborate why we still need that if we are
> able to batch remove active members with adminClient?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Feyman
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 发件人：Matthias J. Sax <[email protected]>
> > 发送时间：2020年4月7日(星期二) 08:25
> > 收件人：dev <[email protected]>
> > 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members
> in StreamsResetter
> >
> > Overall LGTM.
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > So you do not plan so support removing a _single static_ member via
> > `StreamsResetter`? We can of course still add this as a follow up but it
> > might be nice to just add it to this KIP right away. Up to you if you
> > want to include it or not.
> >
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/30/20 8:16 AM, feyman2009 wrote:
> >> Hi, Boyang
> >> Thanks a lot, that make sense, we should not expose member.id in
> the MemberToRemove anymore, I have fixed it in the KIP.
> >>
> >>
> >> Feyman
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 发件人：Boyang Chen <[email protected]>
> >> 发送时间：2020年3月29日(星期日) 01:45
> >> 收件人：dev <[email protected]>; feyman2009 <[email protected]>
> >> 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members in
> StreamsResetter
> >>
> >> Hey Feyman,
> >>
> >> thanks for the update. I assume we would rely entirely on the internal
> changes for `removeMemberFromGroup` by sending a DescribeGroup request
> first. With that in mind, I don't think we need to add member.id to
> MemberToRemove anymore, as it is only facing public where users will only
> configure group.instance.id?
> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 5:04 PM feyman2009
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Bump, can anyone kindly take a look at the updated KIP-571? Thanks!
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 发件人：feyman2009 <[email protected]>
> >> 发送时间：2020年3月23日(星期一) 08:51
> >> 收件人：dev <[email protected]>
> >> 主 题：回复：回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members in
> StreamsResetter
> >>
> >> Hi, team
> >> I have updated the KIP-571 according to our latest discussion
> results, would you mind to take a look? Thanks!
> >>
> >> Feyman
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 发件人：Boyang Chen <[email protected]>
> >> 发送时间：2020年3月19日(星期四) 13:41
> >> 收件人：dev <[email protected]>; feyman2009 <[email protected]>
> >> 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members in
> StreamsResetter
> >>
> >> Thanks for the insight Feyman. I personally feel adding another admin
> client command is redundant, so picking option 1). The memberInfos struct
> is internal and just used for result reference purposes. I think it could
> still work even we overload with `removeAll` option, if that makes sense.
> >>
> >> Boyang
> >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 8:51 PM feyman2009
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Hi, team
> >> Before going too far on the KIP update, I would like to hear your
> opinions about how we would change the interface of AdminClient, the two
> alternatives I could think of are:
> >> 1) Extend adminClient.removeMembersFromConsumerGroup to support
> remove all
> >> As Guochang suggested, we could add some flag param in
> RemoveMembersFromConsumerGroupOptions to indicated the "remove all" logic.
> >> 2) Add a new API like
> adminClient.removeAllMembersFromConsumerGroup(groupId, options)
> >>
> >> I think 1) will be more compact from the API perspective, but
> looking at the code, I found that the if we are going to remove all, then
> the RemoveMembersFromConsumerGroupResult#memberInfos/memberResult()/all()
> should be changed accordingly, and they seem not that meaningful under the
> "remove all" scenario.
> >>
> >> A minor thought about the
> adminClient.removeMembersFromConsumerGroup API is:
> >> Looking at some other deleteXX APIs, like deleteTopics,
> deleteRecords, the results contains only a Map<A, Future<B>>, I think it's
> enough to describe the related results, is it make sense that we may remove
> memberInfos in RemoveMembersFromConsumerGroupResult ? This KIP has no
> dependency on this if we choose alternative 2)
> >>
> >> Could you advise? Thanks!
> >>
> >> Feyman
> >>
> >>
> >> 送时间：2020年3月15日(星期日) 10:11
> >> 收件人：dev <[email protected]>
> >> 主 题：回复：回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members in
> StreamsResetter
> >>
> >> Hi, all
> >> Thanks a lot for your feedback!
> >> According to the discussion, it seems we don't have some valid
> use cases for removing specific dynamic members, I think it makes sense to
> encapsulate the "get and delete" logic in adminClient. I will update the
> KIP shortly!
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Feyman
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 发件人：Boyang Chen <[email protected]>
> >> 发送时间：2020年3月14日(星期六) 00:39
> >> 收件人：dev <[email protected]>
> >> 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members
> in StreamsResetter
> >>
> >> Thanks Matthias and Guozhang for the feedback. I'm not worrying too
> much
> >> about the member.id exposure as we have done so in a couple of
> areas. As
> >> for the recommended admin client change, I think it makes sense in an
> >> encapsulation perspective. Maybe I'm still a bit hesitant as we are
> losing
> >> the flexibility of closing only a subset of `dynamic members`
> potentially,
> >> but we could always get back and address it if some user feels
> necessary to
> >> have it.
> >>
> >> My short answer would be, LGTM :)
> >>
> >> Boyang
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:26 PM Guozhang Wang <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Matthias,
> >> >
> >> > About the AdminClient param API: that's a great point here. I think
> overall
> >> > if users want to just "remove all members" they should not need to
> first
> >> > get all the member.ids themselves, but instead internally the admin
> client
> >> > can first issue a describe-group request to get all the member.ids,
> and
> >> > then use them in the next issued leave-group request, all
> abstracted away
> >> > from the users. With that in mind, maybe in
> >> > RemoveMembersFromConsumerGroupOptions we can just introduce an
> overloaded
> >> > flag param besides "members" that indicate "remove all"?
> >> >
> >> > Guozhang
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 2:59 PM Matthias J. Sax <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Feyman,
> >> > >
> >> > > some more comments/questions:
> >> > >
> >> > > The description of `LeaveGroupRequest` is clear but it's unclear
> how
> >> > > `MemberToRemove` should behave. Which parameter is required?
> Which is
> >> > > optional? What is the relationship between both.
> >> > >
> >> > > The `LeaveGroupRequest` description clearly states that
> specifying a
> >> > > `memberId` is optional if the `groupInstanceId` is provided. If
> >> > > `MemberToRemove` applies the same pattern, it must be explicitly
> defined
> >> > > in the KIP (and explained in the JavaDocs of `MemberToRemove`)
> because
> >> > > we cannot expect that an admin-client users knows that internally
> a
> >> > > `LeaveGroupRequest` is used nor what the semantics of a
> >> > > `LeaveGroupRequest` are.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > About Admin API:
> >> > >
> >> > > In general, I am also confused that we allow so specify a
> `memberId` at
> >> > > all, because the `memberId` is an internal id that is not really
> exposed
> >> > > to the user. Hence, from a AdminClient point of view, accepting a
> >> > > `memberId` as input seems questionable to me? Of course,
> `memberId` can
> >> > > be collected via `describeConsumerGroups()` but it will return the
> >> > > `memberId` of _all_ consumer in the group and thus how would a
> user know
> >> > > which member should be removed for a dynamic group (if an
> individual
> >> > > member should be removed)?
> >> > >
> >> > > Hence, how can any user get to know the `memberId` of an
> individual
> >> > > client in a programtic way?
> >> > >
> >> > > Also I am wondering in general, why the removal of single dynamic
> member
> >> > > is important? In general, I would expect a short
> `session.timeout` for
> >> > > dynamic groups and thus removing a specific member from the group
> seems
> >> > > not to be an important feature -- for static groups we expect a
> long
> >> > > `session.timeout` and a user can also identify individual clients
> via
> >> > > `groupInstandId`, hence the feature makes sense for this case and
> is
> >> > > straight forward to use.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > About StreamsResetter:
> >> > >
> >> > > For this case we just say "remove all members" and thus the
> >> > > `describeConsumerGroup` approach works. However, it seems to be a
> >> > > special case?
> >> > >
> >> > > Or, if we expected that the "remove all members" use case is the
> norm,
> >> > > why can't we make a change admin-client to directly accept a `
> group.id`?
> >> > > The admin-client can internal first do a `DescribeGroupRequest`
> and
> >> > > afterward corresponding `LeaveGroupRequest` -- i.e., instead of
> building
> >> > > this pattern in `StreamsResetter` we build it directly into
> >> > `AdminClient`.
> >> > >
> >> > > Last, for static group the main use case seems to be to remove an
> >> > > individual member from the group but this feature is not covered
> by the
> >> > > KIP: I think using `--force` to remove all members makes sense,
> but an
> >> > > important second feature to remove an individual static member
> would
> >> > > require it's own flag to specify a single `group.instance.id`.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thoughts?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > -Matthias
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 3/11/20 8:43 PM, feyman2009 wrote:
> >> > > > Hi, Sophie
> >> > > > For 1) Sorry, I found that my expression is kind of
> misleading,
> >> > > what I actually mean is: "if --force not specified, an exception
> saying
> >> > > there are still active members on broker side will be thrown and
> >> > > suggesting using StreamsResetter with --force", I just updated
> the KIP
> >> > > page.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > For 2)
> >> > > > I may also had some misleading expression previous, to
> clarify
> >> > :
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Also, it's more efficient to just send a single "clear the
> group"
> >> > > request vs sending a LeaveGroup
> >> > > > request for every single member. What do you think?
> >> > > > => the comparison is to send a single "clear the group" request
> vs
> >> > > sending a "get members" + a "remove members" request since the
> >> > > adminClient.removeMembersFromConsumerGroup support batch removal.
> We
> >> > > don't need to send lots of leaveGroup requests for every single
> member.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I can understand your point, but I think we could reuse
> the
> >> > > current
> >> > > > adminClient.removeMembersFromConsumerGroup interface
> effectively with
> >> > > the KIP.
> >> > > > What do you think?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Feyman
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > 发件人：Sophie Blee-Goldman <[email protected]>
> >> > > > 发送时间：2020年3月10日(星期二) 03:02
> >> > > > 收件人：dev <[email protected]>; feyman2009 <
> [email protected]>
> >> > > > 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove
> >> > > members in StreamsResetter
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Hey Feyman,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 1) Regarding point 2 in your last email, if I understand
> correctly you
> >> > > propose to change
> >> > > > the current behavior of the reset tool when --force is not
> specified,
> >> > > and wait for (up to)
> >> > > > the session timeout for all members to be removed. I'm not sure
> we
> >> > > should change this,
> >> > > > especially now that we have a better way to handle the case
> when the
> >> > > group is not empty:
> >> > > > we should continue to throw an exception and fail fast, but can
> print
> >> > > a message suggesting
> >> > > > to use the new --force option to remove remaining group
> members. Why
> >> > > make users wait
> >> > > > for the session timeout when we've just added a new feature
> that means
> >> > > they don't have to?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 2) Regarding Matthias' question:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> I am really wondering, if for a static group, we should allow
> users
> >> > > toremove individual members? For a dynamic group this feature
> would not
> >> > > > make much sense IMHO, because the `memberId` is not know by the
> user.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I think his point is similar to what I was trying to get at
> earlier,
> >> > > with the proposal to add a new
> >> > > > #removeAllMembers API rather than an API to remove individual
> members
> >> > > according to their
> >> > > > memberId. As he explained, removing based on memberId is likely
> not
> >> > > that useful in general.
> >> > > > Also, it's not actually what we want to do here; maybe we
> should avoid
> >> > > adding a new API
> >> > > > that we think may be useful in other contexts (remove individual
> >> > > member based on memberId),
> >> > > > and just add the API we actually need (remove all members from
> group)
> >> > > in this KIP? We can
> >> > > > always add the "remove individual member by memberId" API at a
> later
> >> > > point, if it turns out to
> >> > > > actually be requested for specific reasons?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Also, it's more efficient to just send a single "clear the
> group"
> >> > > request vs sending a LeaveGroup
> >> > > > request for every single member. What do you think?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 1:41 AM feyman2009
> >> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > > Hi, Matthias
> >> > > > Thanks, I updated the KIP to mention the deprecated and
> newly
> >> > > added methods.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 1. What happens is `groupInstanceId` is used for a dynamic
> group? What
> >> > > > happens if both parameters are specified? What happens if
> `memberId`
> >> > > > is specified for a static group?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > => my understanding is that the dynamic/static membership is
> member
> >> > > level other than group level, and I think above questions could be
> >> > > answered by the "Leave Group Logic Change" section in KIP-345:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-345%3A+Introduce+static+membership+protocol+to+reduce+consumer+rebalances
> >> > > ,
> >> > > this KIP stays consistent with KIP-345.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 2. About the `--force` option. Currently, StreamsResetter
> fails with
> >> > an
> >> > > > error if the consumer group is not empty. You state in your
> KIP that:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > without --force, we need to wait for session timeout.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Is this an intended behavior change if `--force` is not used
> or is the
> >> > > > KIP description incorrect?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > => This is the intended behavior. For this part, I think there
> are
> >> > > two ways to go:
> >> > > > 1) (the implicit way) Not introducing the new "--force"
> option, with
> >> > > this KIP, StreamsResetter will by default remove active
> members(with
> >> > > long session timeout configured) on broker side
> >> > > > 2) (the explicit way) Introduce the new "--force" option,
> users need
> >> > > to explicitly specify --force to remove the active members. If
> --force
> >> > > not specified, the StreamsResetter behaviour is as previous
> versions'.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I think the two alternatives above are both feasible,
> personally I
> >> > > prefer way 2.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 3. For my own understanding: with the `--force` option, we
> intend to
> >> > get
> >> > > > all `memberIds` and send a "remove member" request for each
> with
> >> > > > corresponding `memberId` to remove the member from the group
> >> > > > (independent is the group is static or dynamic)?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > => Yeah, minor thing to mention is we will send the "remove
> member"
> >> > > request for each member(could be dynamic member or static member)
> to
> >> > > remove them from group
> >> > > > for dynamic members, both "group.instance.id" and "member.id"
> will be
> >> > > specified
> >> > > > for dynamic members, only "member.id" will be specified
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 4. I am really wondering, if for a static group, we should
> allow users
> >> > > to
> >> > > > remove individual members? For a dynamic group this feature
> would not
> >> > > > make much sense IMHO, because the `memberId` is not know by
> the user.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > => KIP-345 introduced the batch removal feature for both static
> >> > > member and dynamic member, my understanding is that "allow users
> to
> >> > > > remove individual members" could be useful for rolling bounce
> and
> >> > > scale down accoding to KIP-345. KafkaAdminClient currently only
> support
> >> > > static member removal and this KIP-571 enables dynamic member
> removal
> >> > > for it, which is also consistent with the broker side logic.
> Users could
> >> > > get the member.id (and group.instance.id if for static member) by
> >> > > adminClient.describeConsumerGroups.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Furthermore, I don't have an assumption that a consumer group
> should
> >> > > contain only static or dynamic members, and I think KIP-345 and
> this KIP
> >> > > don't need to be based on this assumption.
> >> > > > You could correct me if I have the wrong understanding :)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks!
> >> > > > Feyman
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > 发件人：Matthias J. Sax <[email protected]>
> >> > > > 发送时间：2020年3月6日(星期五) 02:20
> >> > > > 收件人：dev <[email protected]>
> >> > > > 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove
> >> > > members in StreamsResetter
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Feyman,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > thanks a lot for the KIP. Overall LGTM. I have a few more
> comment and
> >> > > > questions (sorry for the late reply):
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The KIP mentions that some constructors will be deprecated.
> Those
> >> > should
> >> > > > be listed explicitly. For example:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > public class MemberToRemove {
> >> > > >
> >> > > > // deprecated methods
> >> > > >
> >> > > > @Deprecated
> >> > > > public MemberToRemove(String groupInstanceId);
> >> > > >
> >> > > > // new methods
> >> > > >
> >> > > > public MemberToRemove()
> >> > > >
> >> > > > public MemberToRemove withGroupInstanceId(String
> groupInstanceId)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > public MemberToRemove withMemberId(String memberId)
> >> > > > }
> >> > > >
> >> > > > What happens is `groupInstanceId` is used for a dynamic group?
> What
> >> > > > happens if both parameters are specified? What happens if
> `memberId`
> >> > > > is specified for a static group?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > About the `--force` option. Currently, StreamsResetter fails
> with an
> >> > > > error if the consumer group is not empty. You state in your KIP
> that:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> without --force, we need to wait for session timeout.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Is this an intended behavior change if `--force` is not used or
> is the
> >> > > > KIP description incorrect?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > For my own understanding: with the `--force` option, we intend
> to get
> >> > > > all `memberIds` and send a "remove member" request for each with
> >> > > > corresponding `memberId` to remove the member from the group
> >> > > > (independent is the group is static or dynamic)?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I am really wondering, if for a static group, we should allow
> users to
> >> > > > remove individual members? For a dynamic group this feature
> would not
> >> > > > make much sense IMHO, because the `memberId` is not know by the
> user.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -Matthias
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 3/5/20 7:15 AM, Bill Bejeck wrote:
> >> > > >> Thanks for the KIP. +1 (binding).
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> -Bill
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 12:40 AM Guozhang Wang <
> [email protected]>
> >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >>> Thanks, +1 from me (binding).
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 9:39 PM feyman2009 <
> [email protected]>
> >> > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>> Hi, Guozhang Thanks a lot for the advice, that make sense! I
> >> > > >>>> have updated the KIP page with the operational steps of
> >> > > >>>> StreamsResetter.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Thanks! Feyman
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > > 发件人：Guozhang Wang <[email protected]>
> >> > > >>>> 发送时间：2020年3月3日(星期二) 14:22 收件人：dev <[email protected]>;
> >> > > >>>> feyman2009 <[email protected]> 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：[Vote]
> >> > > >>>> KIP-571: Add option to force remove members in
> StreamsResetter
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Hello Feyman, thanks for the proposal!
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> I read through the doc and overall it looks good to me.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> One minor thing I'd still like to point out is that, the
> >> > > >>>> "removeMembersFromConsumerGroup" only sends a leave-group
> >> > > >>>> request to the coordinator to let it remove the member,
> >> > > >>>> however, if the member is still there alive and running then
> it
> >> > > >>>> would soon be notified that it is no
> >> > > >>> longer
> >> > > >>>> a legal member of the group via heartbeats, and then
> >> > > >>>> automatically tries
> >> > > >>> to
> >> > > >>>> re-join the group. So on the operational side, it is still
> >> > > >>>> required that the following steps:
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> 1) first stop the consumers (of streams instances), wait
> until
> >> > > >>>> the shutdown is complete. 2) then use admin client in case
> the
> >> > > >>>> stopped consumers are still registered at the broker side and
> >> > > >>>> we do not want to wait for session timeout.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Even with this KIP, people should still not skip step 1)
> above,
> >> > > >>>> since otherwise the consumers would re-connect and re-join
> the
> >> > > >>>> group
> >> > > >>> immediately
> >> > > >>>> still.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> In your doc you've already mentioned "Furthermore, users
> should
> >> > > >>>> make sure all the stream applications are shutdown when
> running
> >> > > >>>> StreamsResetter
> >> > > >>> with
> >> > > >>>> --force, otherwise it might trigger unexpected rebalance. "
> >> > > >>>> What I'd want to clarify is that no matter if "--force"
> option
> >> > > >>>> is enabled, this is
> >> > > >>> always
> >> > > >>>> the case that users should shutdown the streams instances
> >> > > >>>> first, and then use the streams resetter :)
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> As long as that is clarified in the proposal documentation,
> I'm
> >> > > >>>> +1 on
> >> > > >>> this
> >> > > >>>> KIP.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Thanks again for the contribution, Guozhang
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:31 AM feyman2009
> >> > > >>>> <[email protected]
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> wrote: Hi, John Sorry, I have mistaken the KIP approval
> >> > > >>>> standard, anyway, I will
> >> > > >>> start
> >> > > >>>> the PR soon and waiting for more binding approvals.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Thanks! Feyman
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > > 发件人：John Roesler <[email protected]>
> >> > > >>>> 发送时间：2020年3月2日(星期一) 22:00 收件人：dev
> >> > > > <[email protected]> 主
> >> > > >>>> 题：Re: 回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove
> members
> >> > > >>>> in StreamsResetter
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Hi Feyman,
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Sorry, but we actually need 3 binding votes for the KIP to
> >> > > >>>> pass. Please feel free to keep bumping the thread until some
> >> > > >>>> more committers can take
> >> > > >>> a
> >> > > >>>> look.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> By the way, you can totally start a PR, but we can’t merge it
> >> > > >>>> until the KIP passes the vote.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Thanks! John
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, at 00:24, feyman2009 wrote:
> >> > > >>>>> Hi,all Since currently we have 1 binding and two non-binding
> >> > > >>>>> +1, I will update the KIP-571 as adopted and initiate a PR
> >> > > >>>>> shortly
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Thanks! Feyman
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > > 发件人：Sophie Blee-Goldman <[email protected]>
> >> > > >>>>> 发送时间：2020年2月28日(星期五) 10:17 收件人：dev
> >> > > > <[email protected]> 主
> >> > > >>>>> 题：Re: 回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members
> >> > > >>>>> in
> >> > > >>>> StreamsResetter
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Thanks for the KIP, +1 (non-binding)
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 12:40 PM Boyang Chen <
> >> > > >>> [email protected]
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> Thanks Feyman, +1 (non-binding)
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:25 AM John Roesler
> >> > > >>>>>> <[email protected]>
> >> > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal!
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>> I'm +1 (binding) -John
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, at 19:41, feyman2009 wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>> Updated with the KIP link:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-571%3A+Add+opti
> >> > > > on+to+force+remove+members+in+StreamsResetter
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>>>>> 发件人：feyman2009 <[email protected]> 发送时
> >> > > >>>>>>>> 间：2020年2月27日(星期四) 09:38 收件人：dev <[email protected]>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> 主 题：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members
> >> > > >>>>>>>> in
> >> > > >>>>>> StreamsResetter
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> Hi, all I would like to start a vote on KIP-571: Add
> >> > > >>>>>>>> option to force
> >> > > >>>> remove
> >> > > >>>>>>>> members in StreamsResetter .
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks! Feyman
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> -- -- Guozhang
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> -- -- Guozhang
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > -- Guozhang
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
