Hi Bill, I would like to reason if there is any correlation between this KIP and KIP-71
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-71%3A+Enable+log+compaction+and+deletion+to+co-exist I feel they are orthogonal but would like to double check with you. Guozhang On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Bill Warshaw <wdwars...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to re-awaken this voting thread now that KIP-33 has merged. This > KIP is now completely unblocked. I have a working branch off of trunk with > my proposed fix, including testing. > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:30 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Jay, Bill: > > > > I'm thinking of one general use case of using timestamp rather than > offset > > for log deletion, which is that for expiration handling in data > > replication, when the source data store decides to expire some data > records > > based on their timestamps, today we need to configure the corresponding > > Kafka changelog topic for compaction, and actively send a tombstone for > > each expired record. Since expiration usually happens with a bunch of > > records, this could generate large tombstone traffic. For example I think > > LI's data replication for Espresso is seeing similar issues and they are > > just not sending tombstone at all. > > > > With timestamp based log deletion policy, this can be easily handled by > > simply setting the current expiration timestamp; but ideally one would > > prefer to configure this topic to be both log compaction enabled as well > as > > log deletion enabled. From that point of view, I feel that current KIP > > still has value to be accepted. > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Bill Warshaw <wdwars...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Yes, I'd agree that offset is a more precise configuration than > > timestamp. > > > If there was a way to set a partition-level configuration, I would > rather > > > use log.retention.min.offset than timestamp. If you have an approach > in > > > mind I'd be open to investigating it. > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > Gotcha, good point. But barring that limitation, you agree that that > > > makes > > > > more sense? > > > > > > > > -Jay > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Bill Warshaw <wdwars...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The problem with offset as a config option is that offsets are > > > > > partition-specific, so we'd need a per-partition config. This > would > > > work > > > > > for our particular use case, where we have single-partition topics, > > but > > > > for > > > > > multiple-partition topics it would delete from all partitions based > > on > > > a > > > > > global topic-level offset. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are saying you considered a kind of trim() api that > > would > > > > > > synchronously chop off the tail of the log starting from a given > > > > offset. > > > > > > That would be one option, but what I was saying was slightly > > > different: > > > > > in > > > > > > the proposal you have where there is a config that controls > > retention > > > > > that > > > > > > the user would update, wouldn't it make more sense for this > config > > to > > > > be > > > > > > based on offset rather than timestamp? > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jay > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Bill Warshaw < > wdwars...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Initially I looked at using the actual offset, by adding a > > call > > > > to > > > > > > > AdminUtils to just delete anything in a given topic/partition > to > > a > > > > > given > > > > > > > offset. I ran into a lot of trouble here trying to work out > how > > > the > > > > > > system > > > > > > > would recognize that every broker had successfully deleted that > > > range > > > > > > from > > > > > > > the partition before returning to the client. If we were ok > > > treating > > > > > > this > > > > > > > as a completely asynchronous operation I would be open to > > > revisiting > > > > > this > > > > > > > approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. For our use case, we would be updating the config every few > > > hours > > > > > > for a > > > > > > > given topic, and there would not a be a sizable amount of > > > > consumers. I > > > > > > > imagine that this would not scale well if someone was adjusting > > > this > > > > > > config > > > > > > > very frequently on a large system, but I don't know if there > are > > > any > > > > > use > > > > > > > cases where that would occur. I imagine most use cases would > > > involve > > > > > > > truncating the log after taking a snapshot or doing some other > > > > > expensive > > > > > > > operation that didn't occur very frequently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Two comments: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Is there a reason to use physical time rather than > > offset? > > > > The > > > > > > idea > > > > > > > > is for the consumer to say when it has consumed something > so > > > it > > > > > can > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > deleted, right? It seems like offset would be a much more > > > > precise > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > to do > > > > > > > > this--i.e. the consumer says "I have checkpointed state up > > to > > > > > > offset X > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > can get rid of anything prior to that". Doing this by > > > timestamp > > > > > > seems > > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > it is just more error prone... > > > > > > > > 2. Is this mechanism practical to use at scale? It > requires > > > > > several > > > > > > ZK > > > > > > > > writes per config change, so I guess that depends on how > > > > > frequently > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > consumers would update the value and how many consumers > > there > > > > > > > are...any > > > > > > > > thoughts on this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Bill Warshaw < > > > wdwars...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to re-initiate the vote for KIP-47 now that KIP-33 > > has > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > accepted and is in-progress. I've updated the KIP ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > 47+-+Add+timestamp-based+log+deletion+policy > > > > > > > > > ). > > > > > > > > > I have a commit with the functionality for KIP-47 ready to > go > > > > once > > > > > > > KIP-33 > > > > > > > > > is complete; it's a fairly minor change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Gwen Shapira < > > > g...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For convenience, the KIP is here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > 47+-+Add+timestamp-based+log+deletion+policy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mind updating the KIP with time formats we plan > on > > > > > > supporting > > > > > > > > > > in the configuration? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Bill Warshaw < > > > > > wdwars...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to initiate the vote for KIP-47. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > Bill Warshaw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > > > -- -- Guozhang
