+0
I think need some unified agreement on the VarInts.
Would this also change in all other area’s of the protocol, e.g. value and key
length in message protocol, to keep this uniform across all protocols going
forwards?
On 17/02/2017, 00:23, "Apurva Mehta" <apu...@confluent.io> wrote:
Hi Jun,
Thanks for the reply. Comments inline.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Hi, Apurva,
>
> Thanks for the reply. A couple of comment below.
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Apurva Mehta <apu...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jun,
> >
> > Answers inline:
> >
> > 210. Pid snapshots: Is the number of pid snapshot configurable or
> hardcoded
> > > with 2? When do we decide to roll a new snapshot? Based on time, byte,
> or
> > > offset? Is that configurable too?
> > >
>
> When a replica becomes a follower, we do a bit log truncation. Having an
> older snapshot allows us to recover the PID->sequence mapping much quicker
> than rescanning the whole log.
This is a good point. I have updated the doc with a more detailed proposal.
Essentially, snapshots will be created on a periodic basis. A reasonable
period would be every 30 or 60 seconds. We will keep at most 2 copies of
the snapshot file. With this setup, we would have to replay at most 60 or
120 seconds of the log in the event of log truncation during leader
failover.
If we need to make any of this configurable, we can expose a config in the
future. It would be easier to add a config we need than remove one with
marginal utility.
>
> > >
> > > 211. I am wondering if we should store ExpirationTime in the producer
> > > transactionalId mapping message as we do in the producer transaction
> > status
> > > message. If a producer only calls initTransactions(), but never
> publishes
> > > any data, we still want to be able to expire and remove the producer
> > > transactionalId mapping message.
> > >
> > >
> > Actually, the document was inaccurate. The transactionalId will be
> expired
> > only if there is no active transaction, and the age of the last
> transaction
> > with that transactionalId is older than the transactioanlId expiration
> > time. With these semantics, storing the expiration time in the
> > transactionalId mapping message won't be useful, since the expiration
> time
> > is a moving target based on transaction activity.
> >
> > I have updated the doc with a clarification.
> >
> >
> >
> Currently, the producer transactionalId mapping message doesn't carry
> ExpirationTime, but the producer transaction status message does. It
would
> be useful if they are consistent.
>
>
You are right. The document has been updated to remove the ExpirationTime
from the transaction status messages as well. Any utility for this field
can be achieved by using the timestamp of the message itself along with
another expiration time (like transactionalId expiration time, transaction
expiration time, etc.).
Thanks,
Apurva
The information contained in this email is strictly confidential and for the
use of the addressee only, unless otherwise indicated. If you are not the
intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose to others this
message or any attachment. Please also notify the sender by replying to this
email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) and then delete the email and any
copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) that do not relate to the official
business of this company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by
it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets Limited (a company registered in England
and Wales, company number 04008957) and IG Index Limited (a company registered
in England and Wales, company number 01190902). Registered address at Cannon
Bridge House, 25 Dowgate Hill, London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited
(register number 195355) and IG Index Limited (register number 114059) are
authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
