----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34273/#review84223 -----------------------------------------------------------
core/src/main/scala/kafka/coordinator/PartitionAssignor.scala <https://reviews.apache.org/r/34273/#comment135362> I feel this logic's irregular assignment result may make it a bit harder to reason for debugging. For example if you have three consumers (1,2,3) with two topics each with three partitions, and consumer 1/2 subscribe to topic 1/2 while consumer 3 only subscribe to 2. The result would be: t1p0: c1 t1p1: c2 t1p2: c1 t2p0: c2 t2p0: c1 t2p0: c3 Instead it may be clearer to have: t1p0: c1 t1p1: c2 t1p2: c1 t2p0: c1 t2p1: c2 t2p2: c3 So I suggest grouping the consumers by subscribed topics, and for each group do the round-robin. - Guozhang Wang On May 15, 2015, 3:46 p.m., Onur Karaman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/34273/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 15, 2015, 3:46 p.m.) > > > Review request for kafka. > > > Bugs: KAFKA-2196 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2196 > > > Repository: kafka > > > Description > ------- > > roundrobin doesn't need to make all consumers have identical topic > subscriptions. > > todo: > - run this and range through some simulations > > > Diffs > ----- > > core/src/main/scala/kafka/coordinator/PartitionAssignor.scala > 106982286ce7a9e4f0e9722da2812e3a8e7a6cc3 > core/src/test/scala/unit/kafka/coordinator/PartitionAssignorTest.scala > ba6d5cd85b89214247209d974701eb6c9eb1e2b2 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34273/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Onur Karaman > >
