Hi, Artem, Thanks for the updated KIP. A couple of more comments.
30. For the 3 new configs, it would be useful to make it clear that they are only relevant when the partitioner class is null. 31. partitioner.adaptive.partitioning.enable : I am wondering whether it should default to true. This is a more complex behavior than "uniform sticky" and may take some time to get right. If we do want to enable it by default, it would be useful to validate it with some test results. Jun On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:05 PM Artem Livshits <alivsh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > Thank you for feedback, I've discussed this offline with some of the folks > and updated the KIP. The main change is that now instead of using > DefaultPartitioner and UniformStickyPartitioners as flags, in the new > proposal the default partitioner is null, so if no custom partitioner is > specified then the partitioning logic is implemented in KafkaProducer. > Compatibility section is updated as well. Also the configuration options > are renamed to be more consistent. > > -Artem > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 10:38 PM Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Artem, > > > > Thanks for your explanation and update to the KIP. > > Some comments: > > > > 5. In the description for `enable.adaptive.partitioning`, the `false` > case, > > you said: > > > the producer will try to distribute messages uniformly. > > I think we should describe the possible skewing distribution. Otherwise, > > user might be confused about why adaptive partitioning is important. > > > > 6. In the description for `partition.availability.timeout.ms`, I think > we > > should mention in the last sentence about if > `enable.adaptive.partitioning` > > is disabled this logic is also disabled. > > > > 7. Similar thoughts as Ismael, I think we should have a POC and test to > > prove that this adaptive partitioning algorithm can have better uniform > > partitioning, compared with original sticky one. > > > > Thank you. > > Luke > > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 9:22 PM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > Regarding `3`, we should only deprecate it if we're sure the new > approach > > > handles all cases better. Are we confident about that for both of the > > > previous partitioners? > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 1:37 AM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io.invalid > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Artem, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! I have a few comments: > > > > > > > > 1. In the preamble of the proposed change section, there is still a > > > > mention of the > > > > -1 approach. My understanding is that we have moved away from it now. > > > > > > > > 2. I am a bit concerned by the trick suggested about the > > > > DefaultPartitioner and > > > > the UniformStickyPartitioner. I do agree that implementing the logic > in > > > the > > > > producer itself is a good thing. However, it is weird from a user > > > > perspective > > > > that he can set a class as partitioner that is not used in the end. I > > > > think that > > > > this will be confusing for our users. Have we considered changing the > > > > default > > > > value of partitioner.class to null to indicate that the new built-in > > > > partitioner > > > > must be used? By default, the built-in partitioner would be used > unless > > > the > > > > user explicitly specify one. The downside is that the new default > > > behavior > > > > would not work if the user explicitly specify the partitioner but we > > > could > > > > mitigate this with my next point. > > > > > > > > 3. Related to the previous point, I think that we could deprecate > both > > > the > > > > DefaultPartitioner and the UniformStickyPartitioner. I would also > add a > > > > warning if one of them is explicitly provided by the user to inform > > them > > > > that they should switch to the new built-in one. I am pretty sure > that > > > most > > > > of the folks use the default configuration anyway. > > > > > > > > 4. It would be great if we could explain why the -1 way was rejected. > > At > > > > the moment, the rejected alternative only explain the idea but does > not > > > > say why we rejected it. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > David > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 6:03 AM Artem Livshits > > > > <alivsh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > 2. Removed the option from the KIP. Now the sticky partitioning > > > > threshold > > > > > is hardcoded to batch.size. > > > > > > > > > > 20. Added the corresponding wording to the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > -Artem > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 10:52 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Artem, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Sounds good. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. If we don't expect users to change it, we probably could just > > > leave > > > > out > > > > > > the new config. In general, it's easy to add a new config, but > hard > > > to > > > > > > remove an existing config. > > > > > > > > > > > > 20. The two new configs enable.adaptive.partitioning and > > > > > > partition.availability.timeout.ms only apply to the two built-in > > > > > > partitioners DefaultPartitioner and UniformStickyPartitioner, > > right? > > > It > > > > > > would be useful to document that in the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 9:47 AM Artem Livshits > > > > > > <alivsh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. As we discussed offline, we can hardcode the logic for > > > > > > > DefaultPartitioner and UniformStickyPartitioner in the > > > KafkaProducer > > > > > > (i.e. > > > > > > > the DefaultPartitioner.partition won't get called, instead > > > > KafkaProducer > > > > > > > would check if the partitioner is an instance of > > DefaultPartitioner > > > > and > > > > > > > then run the actual partitioning logic itself). Then the > change > > to > > > > the > > > > > > > Partitioner wouldn't be required. I'll update the KIP to > reflect > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I don't expect users to change this too often, as changing > it > > > > would > > > > > > > require a bit of studying of the production patterns. As a > > general > > > > > > > principle, if I can think of a model that requires a deviation > > from > > > > > > > default, I tend to add a configuration option. It could be > that > > > > it'll > > > > > > > never get used in practice, but I cannot prove that. I'm ok > with > > > > > > removing > > > > > > > the option, let me know what you think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Artem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 2:06 PM Jun Rao > <j...@confluent.io.invalid > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Artem, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. A few more comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Since we control the implementation and the usage of > > > > > > > DefaultPartitioner, > > > > > > > > another way is to instantiate the DefaultPartitioner with a > > > special > > > > > > > > constructor, which allows it to have more access to internal > > > > > > information. > > > > > > > > Then we could just change the behavior of DefaultPartitioner > > > such > > > > that > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > can use the internal infoamtion when choosing the partition. > > This > > > > seems > > > > > > > > more intuitive than having DefaultPartitioner return -1 > > > partition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I guess partitioner.sticky.batch.size is introduced > because > > > the > > > > > > > > effective batch size could be less than batch.size and we > want > > to > > > > align > > > > > > > > partition switching with the effective batch size. How would > a > > > user > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > the effective batch size to set partitioner.sticky.batch.size > > > > properly? > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > the user somehow knows the effective batch size, does setting > > > > > > batch.size > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > the effective batch size achieve the same result? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 8:26 PM Artem Livshits > > > > > > > > <alivsh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Updated the KIP to add a couple paragraphs about > > > > implementation > > > > > > > > > necessities in the Proposed Changes section. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Sorry if my reply was confusing, what I meant to say > (and > > I > > > > > > > elaborated > > > > > > > > > on that in point #3) is that there could be patterns for > > which > > > > 16KB > > > > > > > > > wouldn't be the most effective setting, thus it would be > good > > > to > > > > make > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > configurable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. We could use broker readiness timeout. But I'm not sure > > it > > > > would > > > > > > > > > correctly model the broker load. The problem is that > latency > > > is > > > > not > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > accurate measure of throughput, we could have 2 brokers > that > > > have > > > > > > equal > > > > > > > > > throughput but one has higher latency (so it takes larger > > > batches > > > > > > less > > > > > > > > > frequently, but still takes the same load). Latency-based > > > logic > > > > is > > > > > > > > likely > > > > > > > > > to send less data to the broker with higher latency. Using > > the > > > > queue > > > > > > > > size > > > > > > > > > would adapt to throughput, regardless of latency (which > could > > > be > > > > > > just a > > > > > > > > > result of deployment topology), so that's the model chosen > in > > > the > > > > > > > > > proposal. The partition.availability.timeout.ms logic > > > > approaches > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > model > > > > > > > > > from a slightly different angle, say we have a requirement > to > > > > deliver > > > > > > > > > messages via brokers that have a certain latency, then > > > > > > > > > partition.availability.timeout.ms could be used to tune > > that. > > > > > > Latency > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > much more volatile metric than throughput (latency depends > on > > > > > > external > > > > > > > > > load, on capacity, on deployment topology, on jitter in > > > network, > > > > on > > > > > > > > jitter > > > > > > > > > in disk, etc.) and I think it would be best to leave > > > > latency-based > > > > > > > > > thresholds configurable to tune for the environment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Artem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:14 AM Jun Rao > > > > <j...@confluent.io.invalid> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Artem, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. A few more comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more on how the > > producer > > > > > > > > determines > > > > > > > > > > the partition if the partitioner returns -1. This will > help > > > > > > > understand > > > > > > > > > why > > > > > > > > > > encapsulating that logic as a partitioner is not clean. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I am not sure that I understand this part. If 15.5KB > is > > > more > > > > > > > > > efficient, > > > > > > > > > > could we just set batch.size to 15.5KB? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Yes, we could add a switch (or a variant of the > > > > partitioner) for > > > > > > > > > > enabling this behavior. Also, choosing partitions based > on > > > > broker > > > > > > > > > readiness > > > > > > > > > > can be made in a smoother way. For example, we could > track > > > the > > > > last > > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > broker has drained any batches from the accumulator. We > can > > > > then > > > > > > > select > > > > > > > > > > partitions from brokers proportionally to the inverse of > > that > > > > time. > > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > > > seems smoother than a cutoff based on a > > > > > > > > > partition.availability.timeout.ms > > > > > > > > > > threshold. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 5:14 PM Artem Livshits > > > > > > > > > > <alivsh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Luke, Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback. I've added the Rejected > > > > Alternative > > > > > > > > > section > > > > > > > > > > > that may clarify some of the questions w.r.t. returning > > -1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I've elaborated on the -1 in the KIP. The problem > is > > > > that a > > > > > > > > > > significant > > > > > > > > > > > part of the logic needs to be in the producer (because > it > > > now > > > > > > uses > > > > > > > > > > > information about brokers that only the producer > knows), > > so > > > > > > > > > encapsulation > > > > > > > > > > > of the logic within the default partitioner isn't as > > clean. > > > > > > I've > > > > > > > > > added > > > > > > > > > > > the Rejected Alternative section that documents an > > attempt > > > to > > > > > > keep > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > encapsulation by providing new callbacks to the > > > partitioner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The meaning of the partitioner.sticky.batch.size is > > > > explained > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > Uniform Sticky Batch Size section. Basically, we track > > the > > > > > > amount > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > bytes > > > > > > > > > > > produced to the partition and if it exceeds > > > > > > > > > partitioner.sticky.batch.size > > > > > > > > > > > then we switch to the next partition. As far as the > > reason > > > > to > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > different from batch.size, I think Luke answered this > > with > > > > the > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > > #3 > > > > > > > > > > > -- what if the load pattern is such that 15.5KB would > be > > > more > > > > > > > > efficient > > > > > > > > > > > than 16KB? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I think it's hard to have one size that would fit > all > > > > > > patterns. > > > > > > > > > E.g. > > > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > > the load pattern is such that there is linger and the > app > > > > fills > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > batch > > > > > > > > > > > before linger expires, then having 16KB would most > likely > > > > > > > synchronize > > > > > > > > > > > batching and partition switching, so each partition > would > > > > get a > > > > > > > full > > > > > > > > > > > batch. If load pattern is such that there are a few > > > > non-complete > > > > > > > > > batches > > > > > > > > > > > go out before a larger batch starts to fill, then it > may > > > > actually > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > beneficial to make slightly larger (e.g. linger=0, > first > > > few > > > > > > > records > > > > > > > > go > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > the first batch, then next few records go to second > > batch, > > > > and so > > > > > > > on, > > > > > > > > > > until > > > > > > > > > > > 5 in-flight, then larger batch would form while waiting > > for > > > > > > broker > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > respond, but the partition switch would happen before > the > > > > larger > > > > > > > > batch > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > full). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. There are a couple of reasons for introducing > > > > > > > > > > > partition.availability.timeout.ms. Luke's an Jun's > > > > questions > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > slightly > > > > > > > > > > > different, so I'm going to separate replies. > > > > > > > > > > > (Luke) Is the queue size a good enough signal? I think > > > it's > > > > a > > > > > > good > > > > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > > > > signal as it tries to preserve general fairness and not > > > > overreact > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > broker's state at each moment in time. But because > it's > > > > smooth, > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > be reactive enough to instantaneous latency jumps. For > > > > > > > > > latency-sensitive > > > > > > > > > > > workloads, it may be desirable to react faster when a > > > broker > > > > > > > becomes > > > > > > > > > > > unresponsive (but that may make the distribution really > > > > choppy), > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > > partition.availability.timeout.ms provides an > > opportunity > > > to > > > > > > tune > > > > > > > > > > > adaptiveness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Jun) Can we just not assign partitions to brokers that > > are > > > > not > > > > > > > > ready? > > > > > > > > > > > Switching partitions purely based on current broker > > > readiness > > > > > > > > > information > > > > > > > > > > > can really skew workload I think (or at least I > couldn't > > > > build a > > > > > > > > model > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > proves that over time it's going to be generally > fair), I > > > > feel > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > algorithm should try to be fair in general and use > > smoother > > > > > > signals > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > default (e.g. a broker with choppier latency may get > much > > > > less > > > > > > load > > > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > > though it can handle throughput, it then may > potentially > > > skew > > > > > > > > > > consumption), > > > > > > > > > > > note that the queue-size-based logic uses probabilities > > (so > > > > we > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > > fully > > > > > > > > > > > remove brokers, just make it less likely) and relative > > info > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > > than a > > > > > > > > > > > threshold (so if all brokers are heavily, but equally > > > loaded, > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > > > equal distribution, rather than get removed because > they > > > > exceed > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > threshold). So at the very least, I would like this > > logic > > > > to be > > > > > > > > turned > > > > > > > > > > off > > > > > > > > > > > by default as it's hard to predict what it could do > with > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > > patterns > > > > > > > > > > > (which means that there would need to be some > > > > configuration). We > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > > just not use brokers that are not ready, but again, I > > think > > > > that > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > > > good > > > > > > > > > > > to try to be fair under normal circumstances, so if > > > normally > > > > > > > brokers > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > respond under some partition.availability.timeout.ms > > > > threshold > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > application works well with those latencies, then we > > could > > > > > > > distribute > > > > > > > > > > data > > > > > > > > > > > equally between brokers that don't exceed the > latencies. > > > The > > > > > > > value, > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > course, would depend on the environment and app > > > requirements, > > > > > > hence > > > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > > > > configurable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10. Added a statement at the beginning of the proposed > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Artem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 3:46 PM Jun Rao > > > > <j...@confluent.io.invalid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Artem, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. A few comments below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I agree with Luke that having the partitioner > > > returning > > > > -1 > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > kind > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > weird. Could we just change the implementation of > > > > > > > > DefaultPartitioner > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > new behavior? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. partitioner.sticky.batch.size: Similar question to > > > > Luke. I > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > sure > > > > > > > > > > > > why we want to introduce this new configuration. > Could > > we > > > > just > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > existing batch.size? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. I also agree with Luke that it's not clear why we > > need > > > > > > > > > > > > partition.availability.timeout.ms. The KIP says the > > > broker > > > > > > > "would > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > chosen until the broker is able to accept the next > > ready > > > > batch > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > partition". If we are keeping track of this, could we > > > just > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > > > > > > assigning > > > > > > > > > > > > records to partitions whose leader is not able to > > accept > > > > the > > > > > > next > > > > > > > > > > batch? > > > > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > > > > we do that, perhaps we don't need > > > > > > > > partition.availability.timeout.ms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10. Currently, partitioner.class defaults to > > > > > > DefaultPartitioner, > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > uses > > > > > > > > > > > > StickyPartitioner when the key is specified. Since > this > > > KIP > > > > > > > > improves > > > > > > > > > > upon > > > > > > > > > > > > StickyPartitioner, it would be useful to make the new > > > > behavior > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > > > > > and document that in the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:30 PM Luke Chen < > > > > show...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Artem, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, one more thing I think you need to know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > As this bug KAFKA-7572 < > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7572 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned, sometimes the custom partitioner would > > > return > > > > > > > negative > > > > > > > > > > > > partition > > > > > > > > > > > > > id accidentally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it returned -1, how could you know if it is > > expected > > > > or > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > expected? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Luke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 3:28 PM Luke Chen < > > > > show...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Artem, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the update. I have some questions > about > > > it: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Could you explain why you need the > `partitioner` > > > > return > > > > > > > -1? > > > > > > > > In > > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case we need it? And how it is used in your KIP? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. What does the "partitioner.sticky.batch.size" > > > mean? > > > > In > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Configuration" part, you didn't explain it. And > > > > default to > > > > > > > 0, > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > guess > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the same as current behavior for backward > > > > compatibility, > > > > > > > right? > > > > > > > > > You > > > > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I'm thinking we can have a threshold to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "partitioner.sticky.batch.size". Let's say, we > > > already > > > > > > > > accumulate > > > > > > > > > > > > 15.5KB > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > partition1, and sent. So when next batch created, > > in > > > > your > > > > > > > > current > > > > > > > > > > > > design, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we still stick to partition1, until 16KB reached, > > and > > > > then > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > create > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > batch to change to next partition, ex: > partition2. > > > But > > > > I > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > set > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > threshold to 95% (for example), we can know > > previous > > > > 15.5KB > > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > > > > > exceeds > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the threshold so that we can directly create new > > > batch > > > > for > > > > > > > next > > > > > > > > > > > > records. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This way should be able to make it more > efficient. > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. I think the improved queuing logic should be > > good > > > > > > enough. > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > can't > > > > > > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the benefit of having ` > > > > partition.availability.timeout.ms` > > > > > > > > > config. > > > > > > > > > > In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > short, you want to make the partitioner take the > > > broker > > > > > > load > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consideration. We can just improve that in the > > > queuing > > > > > > logic > > > > > > > > (and > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already did it). Why should we add the config? > > Could > > > > you > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > > > > examples > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to explain why we need it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Luke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:57 AM Artem Livshits > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <alivsh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Please add your comments about the KIP. If > there > > > are > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > > > considerations, > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I'll put it up for vote in the next few days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Artem > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 6:01 PM Artem Livshits < > > > > > > > > > > > alivsh...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > After trying a few prototypes, I've made some > > > > changes to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > interface. Please see the updated document > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-794%3A+Strictly+Uniform+Sticky+Partitioner > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > -Artem > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 10:37 AM Artem > Livshits < > > > > > > > > > > > > > alivsh...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> This is the discussion thread for > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-794%3A+Strictly+Uniform+Sticky+Partitioner > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> . > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> The proposal is a bug fix for > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-10888, > > > > but > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> include a > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> client config change, therefore we have a KIP > > to > > > > > > discuss. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> -Artem > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
