I've updated the KIP to make the new minimum value 1 and remove the -1
configuration.
I've also added the low priority to the configuration and edited the
description as Ismael mentioned.

I'm thinking about bringing this KIP to a vote soon! Let me know if there
are any other comments or questions.

Thanks,
Justine

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 9:02 AM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io.invalid>
wrote:

> I agree with Ismael that we should remove -1. I think we tend to view the
> coupling of these behaviors into a single configuration as a mistake, so
> it's a little odd to keep it (even if in a weakened form).
>
> -Jason
>
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 7:37 AM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > I would remove -1 altogether. Two more comments:
> >
> > 1. The current description kind of leads people towards aligning the
> config
> > with delivery.timeout.ms. Is that what we want? We could say it should
> be
> > higher than delivery.timeout.ms but indicate that the default is usually
> > fine. The main reason to reduce it would be to save memory, I guess.
> > 2. Each config has a priority, we should specify it for this one. I'm
> > assuming it will be "low".
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 2:38 PM Justine Olshan
> > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I've updated the KIP to include the new default of 1 day and
> information
> > > about -1 in the description of the config.
> > > I wonder though if including -1 makes sense now that it is not the
> > default
> > > value. Is there a benefit for manually setting -1 vs manually setting
> the
> > > value that transactional.id.expiration.ms has?
> > >
> > > Let me know your thoughts.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justine
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for having 1 day as the default and for including this change in
> the
> > > > release notes.
> > > >
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 9:16 AM Jason Gustafson
> > > <ja...@confluent.io.invalid
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I don't think a major release is a requirement for a default change
> > for
> > > > > what it's worth. I do appreciate that there is a preference for not
> > > > rocking
> > > > > the boat though. For a little bit of background here, the problem
> we
> > > > > have encountered in production since the idempotent producer became
> > the
> > > > > default is OOM errors due to huge numbers of producerIds that had
> to
> > be
> > > > > retained in the cache for 7 days. It is hard to prevent use cases
> > from
> > > > > emerging where producers are used and discarded rapidly. We will be
> > > > using a
> > > > > lower value for sure, but it would also be nice to reduce the
> > > likelihood
> > > > > for the community to see this problem. The benefit of the caching
> > > > > diminishes quickly over time since it is primarily meant to handle
> > > > producer
> > > > > retry windows. I do not think there is much difference between 1
> days
> > > > and 7
> > > > > days from an application perspective, but it is a huge difference
> for
> > > the
> > > > > broker's memory usage.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Jason
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 2:57 AM Sagar <sagarmeansoc...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks Justine for the KIP. I think it might be better to
> document
> > > the
> > > > > > correlation between the new config and delivery.timeout.ms in
> the
> > > > Public
> > > > > > Interfaces Description.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I agree with Luke that for now setting a default to -1
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > good. We can look to switch to 1 day with major release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > Sagar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 9:05 AM Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Justine,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP.
> > > > > > > I agree with you that we should try our best to keep backward
> > > > > > > compatibility, although our intention is to have lower producer
> > id
> > > > > > > expiration timeout.
> > > > > > > So, I think we should keep default to -1 IMO.
> > > > > > > Maybe we change the default to 1 day in next major release
> (4.0)?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > > > Luke
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 7:13 AM Justine Olshan
> > > > > > > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for taking a look Jason!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I wondered if we wanted to have a smaller default but wasn't
> > sure
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > compatibility story -- especially since there is the chance
> for
> > > > > > producer
> > > > > > > > IDs to expire silently.
> > > > > > > > I do think that 1 day is fairly reasonable. If I don't hear
> any
> > > > > > > conflicting
> > > > > > > > opinions I can go ahead and update the default.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Justine
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 12:23 PM Jason Gustafson
> > > > > > > > <ja...@confluent.io.invalid>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Justine,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. Although I hate seeing new
> > configurations,
> > > I
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > is a good change. Combining these timeout behaviors into a
> > > single
> > > > > > > > > configuration was definitely a mistake, but we didn't
> > > anticipate
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > problem with the producer id cache. I do wonder if we can
> > make
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > a bit lower to reduce the chances that users will hit the
> > same
> > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > > issues we have seen. After decoupling this configuration
> from
> > > > > > > > > transactional.id.expiration.ms, the new timeout just needs
> > to
> > > > > cover
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > longest duration that a producer might be retrying the same
> > > > Produce
> > > > > > > > > request. 7 days seems too high. Although I think it could
> go
> > a
> > > > fair
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > lower, perhaps 1 day is a reasonable place to start?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Jason
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Justine Olshan
> > > > > > > > > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hey Bill,
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks! I was just going to say that hopefully
> > > > > > > > > > transactional.id.expiration.ms would also be over the
> > > delivery
> > > > > > > > timeout.
> > > > > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the +1!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Justine
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 9:17 AM Bill Bejeck <
> > > bbej...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Justine,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I just took another look at the KIP, and I realize my
> > > > > > > > > question/suggestion
> > > > > > > > > > > about default values has already been addressed in the
> > > > > > > > `Compatibility`
> > > > > > > > > > > section.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm +1 on the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -Bill
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 6:20 PM Bill Bejeck <
> > > > bbej...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Justine,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the well written KIP, this looks like it
> > will
> > > > be a
> > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > > > addition.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Overall the KIP looks good to me, I have one
> > > > > question/comment.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You mentioned that setting the `
> > > producer.id.expiration.ms`
> > > > > > less
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > delivery timeout could lead to duplicates, which
> makes
> > > > sense.
> > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > avoid this situation, do we want to consider a
> default
> > > > value
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > same as the delivery timeout?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again for the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bill
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 4:54 PM Justine Olshan
> > > > > > > > > > > > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Hey all!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> I'd like to start a discussion on my proposal to
> > > separate
> > > > > > > > time-based
> > > > > > > > > > > >> producer ID expiration from transactional ID
> > expiration
> > > by
> > > > > > > > > > introducing a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> new configuration.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> The KIP Is pretty small and simple, but will be
> > helpful
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > controlling
> > > > > > > > > > > >> memory usage in brokers -- especially now that by
> > > default
> > > > > > > > producers
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > >> idempotent and create producer ID state.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Please take a look and leave any comments you may
> > have!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> KIP:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-854+Separate+configuration+for+producer+ID+expiry
> > > > > > > > > > > >> JIRA:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14097
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Justine
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to