I see. Good point about SSL. I just asked Todd to take a look.
Thanks, Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi, Jiangjie, > > Yes, I agree that byte rate already protects the network threads > indirectly. I am not sure if byte rate fully captures the CPU overhead in > network due to SSL. So, at the high level, we can use request time limit to > protect CPU and use byte rate to protect storage and network. > > Also, do you think you can get Todd to comment on this KIP? > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Rajini/Jun, > > > > The percentage based reasoning sounds good. > > One thing I am wondering is that if we assume the network thread are just > > doing the network IO, can we say bytes rate quota is already sort of > > network threads quota? > > If we take network threads into the consideration here, would that be > > somewhat overlapping with the bytes rate quota? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Rajini Sivaram <rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > Jun, > > > > > > Thank you for the explanation, I hadn't realized you meant percentage > of > > > the total thread pool. If everyone is OK with Jun's suggestion, I will > > > update the KIP. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, Rajini, > > > > > > > > Let's take your example. Let's say a user sets the limit to 50%. I am > > not > > > > sure if it's better to apply the same percentage separately to > network > > > and > > > > io thread pool. For example, for produce requests, most of the time > > will > > > be > > > > spent in the io threads whereas for fetch requests, most of the time > > will > > > > be in the network threads. So, using the same percentage in both > thread > > > > pools means one of the pools' resource will be over allocated. > > > > > > > > An alternative way is to simply model network and io thread pool > > > together. > > > > If you get 10 io threads and 5 network threads, you get 1500% request > > > > processing power. A 50% limit means a total of 750% processing power. > > We > > > > just add up the time a user request spent in either network or io > > thread. > > > > If that total exceeds 750% (doesn't matter whether it's spent more in > > > > network or io thread), the request will be throttled. This seems more > > > > general and is not sensitive to the current implementation detail of > > > having > > > > a separate network and io thread pool. In the future, if the > threading > > > > model changes, the same concept of quota can still be applied. For > now, > > > > since it's a bit tricky to add the delay logic in the network thread > > > pool, > > > > we could probably just do the delaying only in the io threads as you > > > > suggested earlier. > > > > > > > > There is still the orthogonal question of whether a quota of 50% is > out > > > of > > > > 100% or 100% * #total processing threads. My feeling is that the > latter > > > is > > > > slightly better based on my explanation earlier. The way to describe > > this > > > > quota to the users can be "share of elapsed request processing time > on > > a > > > > single CPU" (similar to top). > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jun, > > > > > > > > > > Agree about the two scenarios. > > > > > > > > > > But still not sure about a single quota covering both network > threads > > > and > > > > > I/O threads with per-thread quota. If there are 10 I/O threads and > 5 > > > > > network threads and I want to assign half the quota to userA, the > > quota > > > > > would be 750%. I imagine, internally, we would convert this to 500% > > for > > > > I/O > > > > > and 250% for network threads to allocate 50% of each pool. > > > > > > > > > > A couple of scenarios: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Admin adds 1 extra network thread. To retain 50%, admin needs to > > now > > > > > allocate 800% for each user. Or increase the quota for a few users. > > To > > > > me, > > > > > it feels like admin needs to convert 50% to 800% and Kafka > internally > > > > needs > > > > > to convert 800% to (500%, 300%). Everyone using just 50% feels a > lot > > > > > simpler. > > > > > > > > > > 2. We decide to add some other thread to this list. Admin needs to > > know > > > > > exactly how many threads form the maximum quota. And we can be > > changing > > > > > this between broker versions as we add more to the list. Again a > > single > > > > > overall percent would be a lot simpler. > > > > > > > > > > There were others who were unconvinced by a single percent from the > > > > initial > > > > > proposal and were happier with thread units similar to CPU units, > so > > I > > > am > > > > > ok with going with per-thread quotas (as units or percent). Just > not > > > sure > > > > > it makes it easier for admin in all cases. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Rajini, > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider modeling as n * 100% unit. For 2), the question is > what's > > > > > causing > > > > > > the I/O threads to be saturated. It's unlikely that all users' > > > > > utilization > > > > > > have increased at the same. A more likely case is that a few > > isolated > > > > > > users' utilization have increased. If so, after increasing the > > number > > > > of > > > > > > threads, the admin just needs to adjust the quota for a few > > isolated > > > > > users, > > > > > > which is expected and is less work. > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider modeling as 1 * 100% unit. For 1), all users' quota need > > to > > > be > > > > > > adjusted, which is unexpected and is more work. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, to me, the n * 100% model seems more convenient. > > > > > > > > > > > > As for future extension to cover network thread utilization, I > was > > > > > thinking > > > > > > that one way is to simply model the capacity as (n + m) * 100% > > unit, > > > > > where > > > > > > n and m are the number of network and i/o threads, respectively. > > > Then, > > > > > for > > > > > > each user, we can just add up the utilization in the network and > > the > > > > i/o > > > > > > thread. If we do this, we don't need a new type of quota. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we use request.percentage as the percentage used in a single > > I/O > > > > > > thread, > > > > > > > the total percentage being allocated will be num.io.threads * > 100 > > > for > > > > > I/O > > > > > > > threads and num.network.threads * 100 for network threads. A > > single > > > > > quota > > > > > > > covering the two as a percentage wouldn't quite work if you > want > > to > > > > > > > allocate the same proportion in both cases. If we want to treat > > > > threads > > > > > > as > > > > > > > separate units, won't we need two quota configurations > regardless > > > of > > > > > > > whether we use units or percentage? Perhaps I misunderstood > your > > > > > > > suggestion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think there are two cases: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The use case that you mentioned where an admin is adding > > more > > > > > users > > > > > > > and decides to add more I/O threads and expects to find free > > > quota > > > > > to > > > > > > > allocate for new users. > > > > > > > 2. Admin adds more I/O threads because the I/O threads are > > > > saturated > > > > > > and > > > > > > > there are cores available to allocate, even though the > number > > or > > > > > > > users/clients hasn't changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we allocated treated I/O threads as a single unit of 100%, > all > > > > user > > > > > > > quotas need to be reallocated for 1). If we allocated I/O > threads > > > as > > > > n > > > > > > > units with n*100%, all user quotas need to be reallocated for > 2), > > > > > > otherwise > > > > > > > some of the new threads may just not be used. Either way it > > should > > > be > > > > > > easy > > > > > > > to write a script to decrease/increase quotas by a multiple for > > all > > > > > > users. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it really boils down to which quota unit is most intuitive > in > > > > terms > > > > > of > > > > > > > configuration. And from the discussion so far, it feels like > > > opinion > > > > is > > > > > > > divided on whether quotas should be carved out of an absolute > > 100% > > > > (or > > > > > 1 > > > > > > > unit) or be relative to the number of threads (n*100% or n > > units). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another way to express an absolute limit is to use > > > > > request.percentage, > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > treat it as the percentage used in a single request handling > > > > thread. > > > > > > For > > > > > > > > now, the request handling threads can be just the io threads. > > In > > > > the > > > > > > > > future, they can cover the network threads as well. This is > > > similar > > > > > to > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > top reports CPU usage and may be a bit easier for people to > > > > > understand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Jay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Regarding request.unit vs request.percentage. I started > > with > > > > > > > > > request.percentage too. The reasoning for request.unit is > the > > > > > > > following. > > > > > > > > > Suppose that the capacity has been reached on a broker and > > the > > > > > admin > > > > > > > > needs > > > > > > > > > to add a new user. A simple way to increase the capacity is > > to > > > > > > increase > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > number of io threads, assuming there are still enough > cores. > > If > > > > the > > > > > > > limit > > > > > > > > > is based on percentage, the additional capacity > automatically > > > > gets > > > > > > > > > distributed to existing users and we haven't really carved > > out > > > > any > > > > > > > > > additional resource for the new user. Now, is it easy for a > > > user > > > > to > > > > > > > > reason > > > > > > > > > about 0.1 unit vs 10%. My feeling is that both are hard and > > > have > > > > to > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > configured empirically. Not sure if percentage is obviously > > > > easier > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > reason about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Jay Kreps < > j...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> A couple of quick points: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 1. Even though the implementation of this quota is only > > using > > > io > > > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > >> time, i think we should call it something like > > "request-time". > > > > > This > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > >> give us flexibility to improve the implementation to cover > > > > network > > > > > > > > threads > > > > > > > > >> in the future and will avoid exposing internal details > like > > > our > > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > >> pools on the server. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 2. Jun/Roger, I get what you are trying to fix but the > idea > > of > > > > > > > > >> thread/units > > > > > > > > >> is super unintuitive as a user-facing knob. I had to read > > the > > > > KIP > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > >> eight times to understand this. I'm not sure that your > point > > > > that > > > > > > > > >> increasing the number of threads is a problem with a > > > > > > percentage-based > > > > > > > > >> value, it really depends on whether the user thinks about > > the > > > > > > > > "percentage > > > > > > > > >> of request processing time" or "thread units". If they > think > > > "I > > > > > have > > > > > > > > >> allocated 10% of my request processing time to user x" > then > > it > > > > is > > > > > a > > > > > > > bug > > > > > > > > >> that increasing the thread count decreases that percent as > > it > > > > does > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> current proposal. As a practical matter I think the only > way > > > to > > > > > > > actually > > > > > > > > >> reason about this is as a percent---I just don't believe > > > people > > > > > are > > > > > > > > going > > > > > > > > >> to think, "ah, 4.3 thread units, that is the right > amount!". > > > > > > Instead I > > > > > > > > >> think they have to understand this thread unit concept, > > figure > > > > out > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > >> they have set in number of threads, compute a percent and > > then > > > > > come > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > > > >> the number of thread units, and these will all be wrong if > > > that > > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > >> count changes. I also think this ties us to throttling the > > I/O > > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > >> pool, > > > > > > > > >> which may not be where we want to end up. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 3. For what it's worth I do think having a single > > throttle_ms > > > > > field > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > >> the responses that combines all throttling from all quotas > > is > > > > > > probably > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> simplest. There could be a use case for having separate > > fields > > > > for > > > > > > > each, > > > > > > > > >> but I think that is actually harder to use/monitor in the > > > common > > > > > > case > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > >> unless someone has a use case I think just one should be > > fine. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> -Jay > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > > > > > > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > I have updated the KIP based on the discussions so far. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Regards, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Rajini > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > > > > > > > > >> rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Thank you all for the feedback. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Ismael #1. It makes sense not to throttle inter-broker > > > > > requests > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > >> > > LeaderAndIsr etc. The simplest way to ensure that > > clients > > > > > cannot > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > >> > these > > > > > > > > >> > > requests to bypass quotas for DoS attacks is to ensure > > > that > > > > > ACLs > > > > > > > > >> prevent > > > > > > > > >> > > clients from using these requests and unauthorized > > > requests > > > > > are > > > > > > > > >> included > > > > > > > > >> > > towards quotas. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Ismael #2, Jay #1 : I was thinking that these quotas > can > > > > > return > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > >> > separate > > > > > > > > >> > > throttle time, and all utilization based quotas could > > use > > > > the > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > >> field > > > > > > > > >> > > (we won't add another one for network thread > utilization > > > for > > > > > > > > >> instance). > > > > > > > > >> > But > > > > > > > > >> > > perhaps it makes sense to keep byte rate quotas > separate > > > in > > > > > > > > >> produce/fetch > > > > > > > > >> > > responses to provide separate metrics? Agree with > Ismael > > > > that > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> name of > > > > > > > > >> > > the existing field should be changed if we have two. > > Happy > > > > to > > > > > > > switch > > > > > > > > >> to a > > > > > > > > >> > > single combined throttle time if that is sufficient. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Ismael #4, #5, #6: Will update KIP. Will use dot > > separated > > > > > name > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > >> new > > > > > > > > >> > > property. Replication quotas use dot separated, so it > > will > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> consistent > > > > > > > > >> > > with all properties except byte rate quotas. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Radai: #1 Request processing time rather than request > > rate > > > > > were > > > > > > > > chosen > > > > > > > > >> > > because the time per request can vary significantly > > > between > > > > > > > requests > > > > > > > > >> as > > > > > > > > >> > > mentioned in the discussion and KIP. > > > > > > > > >> > > #2 Two separate quotas for heartbeats/regular requests > > > feel > > > > > like > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > >> > > configuration and more metrics. Since most users would > > set > > > > > > quotas > > > > > > > > >> higher > > > > > > > > >> > > than the expected usage and quotas are more of a > safety > > > > net, a > > > > > > > > single > > > > > > > > >> > quota > > > > > > > > >> > > should work in most cases. > > > > > > > > >> > > #3 The number of requests in purgatory is limited by > > the > > > > > number > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > >> > active > > > > > > > > >> > > connections since only one request per connection will > > be > > > > > > > throttled > > > > > > > > >> at a > > > > > > > > >> > > time. > > > > > > > > >> > > #4 As with byte rate quotas, to use the full allocated > > > > quotas, > > > > > > > > >> > > clients/users would need to use partitions that are > > > > > distributed > > > > > > > > across > > > > > > > > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > > cluster. The alternative of using cluster-wide quotas > > > > instead > > > > > of > > > > > > > > >> > per-broker > > > > > > > > >> > > quotas would be far too complex to implement. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Dong : We currently have two ClientQuotaManagers for > > quota > > > > > types > > > > > > > > Fetch > > > > > > > > >> > and > > > > > > > > >> > > Produce. A new one will be added for IOThread, which > > > manages > > > > > > > quotas > > > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > > > >> > I/O > > > > > > > > >> > > thread utilization. This will not update the Fetch or > > > > Produce > > > > > > > > >> queue-size, > > > > > > > > >> > > but will have a separate metric for the queue-size. I > > > > wasn't > > > > > > > > >> planning to > > > > > > > > >> > > add any additional metrics apart from the equivalent > > ones > > > > for > > > > > > > > existing > > > > > > > > >> > > quotas as part of this KIP. Ratio of byte-rate to I/O > > > thread > > > > > > > > >> utilization > > > > > > > > >> > > could be slightly misleading since it depends on the > > > > sequence > > > > > of > > > > > > > > >> > requests. > > > > > > > > >> > > But we can look into more metrics after the KIP is > > > > implemented > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > >> > required. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I think we need to limit the maximum delay since all > > > > requests > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > >> > > throttled. If a client has a quota of 0.001 units and > a > > > > single > > > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > >> > used > > > > > > > > >> > > 50ms, we don't want to delay all requests from the > > client > > > by > > > > > 50 > > > > > > > > >> seconds, > > > > > > > > >> > > throwing the client out of all its consumer groups. > The > > > > issue > > > > > is > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > >> if > > > > > > > > >> > a > > > > > > > > >> > > user is allocated a quota that is insufficient to > > process > > > > one > > > > > > > large > > > > > > > > >> > > request. The expectation is that the units allocated > per > > > > user > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> > much > > > > > > > > >> > > higher than the time taken to process one request and > > the > > > > > limit > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > >> > > seldom be applied. Agree this needs proper > > documentation. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Regards, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Rajini > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:04 PM, radai < > > > > > > > radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> @jun: i wasnt concerned about tying up a request > > > processing > > > > > > > thread, > > > > > > > > >> but > > > > > > > > >> > >> IIUC the code does still read the entire request out, > > > which > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > >> add-up > > > > > > > > >> > >> to > > > > > > > > >> > >> a non-negligible amount of memory. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Dong Lin < > > > > > > lindon...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > Hey Rajini, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > The current KIP says that the maximum delay will be > > > > reduced > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> window > > > > > > > > >> > >> size > > > > > > > > >> > >> > if it is larger than the window size. I have a > > concern > > > > with > > > > > > > this: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > 1) This essentially means that the user is allowed > to > > > > > exceed > > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > >> > quota > > > > > > > > >> > >> > over a long period of time. Can you provide an > upper > > > > bound > > > > > on > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > >> > >> > deviation? > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > 2) What is the motivation for cap the maximum delay > > by > > > > the > > > > > > > window > > > > > > > > >> > size? > > > > > > > > >> > >> I > > > > > > > > >> > >> > am wondering if there is better alternative to > > address > > > > the > > > > > > > > problem. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > 3) It means that the existing metric-related config > > > will > > > > > > have a > > > > > > > > >> more > > > > > > > > >> > >> > directly impact on the mechanism of this > > > > > io-thread-unit-based > > > > > > > > >> quota. > > > > > > > > >> > The > > > > > > > > >> > >> > may be an important change depending on the answer > to > > > 1) > > > > > > above. > > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > >> > >> probably > > > > > > > > >> > >> > need to document this more explicitly. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > Dong > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Dong Lin < > > > > > > > lindon...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Hey Jun, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Yeah you are right. I thought it wasn't because > at > > > > > LinkedIn > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > >> will > > > > > > > > >> > be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > too > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > much pressure on inGraph to expose those > > per-clientId > > > > > > metrics > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > >> we > > > > > > > > >> > >> ended > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > up printing them periodically to local log. Never > > > mind > > > > if > > > > > > it > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> not > > > > > > > > >> > a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > general problem. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Hey Rajini, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > - I agree with Jay that we probably don't want to > > > add a > > > > > new > > > > > > > > field > > > > > > > > >> > for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > every quota ProduceResponse or FetchResponse. Is > > > there > > > > > any > > > > > > > > >> use-case > > > > > > > > >> > >> for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > having separate throttle-time fields for > > > > byte-rate-quota > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > io-thread-unit-quota? You probably need to > document > > > > this > > > > > as > > > > > > > > >> > interface > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > change if you plan to add new field in any > request. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > - I don't think IOThread belongs to quotaType. > The > > > > > existing > > > > > > > > quota > > > > > > > > >> > >> types > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > (i.e. Produce/Fetch/LeaderReplicatio > > > > > n/FollowerReplication) > > > > > > > > >> identify > > > > > > > > >> > >> the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > type of request that are throttled, not the quota > > > > > mechanism > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > applied. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > - If a request is throttled due to this > > > > > > io-thread-unit-based > > > > > > > > >> quota, > > > > > > > > >> > is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > existing queue-size metric in ClientQuotaManager > > > > > > incremented? > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > - In the interest of providing guide line for > admin > > > to > > > > > > decide > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > io-thread-unit-based quota and for user to > > understand > > > > its > > > > > > > > impact > > > > > > > > >> on > > > > > > > > >> > >> their > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > traffic, would it be useful to have a metric that > > > shows > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> overall > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > byte-rate per io-thread-unit? Can we also show > > this a > > > > > > > > >> per-clientId > > > > > > > > >> > >> > metric? > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Dong > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Jun Rao < > > > > > j...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> Hi, Ismael, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> For #3, typically, an admin won't configure more > > io > > > > > > threads > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > >> > CPU > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> cores, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> but it's possible for an admin to start with > fewer > > > io > > > > > > > threads > > > > > > > > >> than > > > > > > > > >> > >> cores > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> and grow that later on. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> Hi, Dong, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> I think the throttleTime sensor on the broker > > tells > > > > the > > > > > > > admin > > > > > > > > >> > >> whether a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> user/clentId is throttled or not. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> Hi, Radi, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> The reasoning for delaying the throttled > requests > > on > > > > the > > > > > > > > broker > > > > > > > > >> > >> instead > > > > > > > > >> > >> > of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> returning an error immediately is that the > latter > > > has > > > > no > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> prevent > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> client from retrying immediately, which will > make > > > > things > > > > > > > > worse. > > > > > > > > >> The > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> delaying logic is based off a delay queue. A > > > separate > > > > > > > > expiration > > > > > > > > >> > >> thread > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> just waits on the next to be expired request. > So, > > it > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > tie > > > > > > > > >> > up a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> request handler thread. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> Jun > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Ismael Juma < > > > > > > > > ism...@juma.me.uk > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > Hi Jay, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > Regarding 1, I definitely like the simplicity > of > > > > > > keeping a > > > > > > > > >> single > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> throttle > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > time field in the response. The downside is > that > > > the > > > > > > > client > > > > > > > > >> > metrics > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> will be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > more coarse grained. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > Regarding 3, we have > > `leader.imbalance.per.broker. > > > > > > > > percentage` > > > > > > > > >> > and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > `log.cleaner.min.cleanable.ratio`. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > Ismael > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Jay Kreps < > > > > > > > > j...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > A few minor comments: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > 1. Isn't it the case that the throttling > > time > > > > > > > response > > > > > > > > >> field > > > > > > > > >> > >> > should > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > have > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > the total time your request was throttled > > > > > > > irrespective > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> quotas > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > that > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > caused that. Limiting it to byte rate > quota > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > >> > >> sense, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> but I > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > also > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > I don't think we want to end up adding > new > > > > fields > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> response > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > every > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > single thing we quota, right? > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > 2. I don't think we should make this > quota > > > > > > > specifically > > > > > > > > >> > about > > > > > > > > >> > >> io > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > threads. Once we introduce these quotas > > > people > > > > > set > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > expect > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > them > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > be enforced (and if they aren't it may > > cause > > > an > > > > > > > > outage). > > > > > > > > >> As > > > > > > > > >> > a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> result > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > they > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > are a bit more sensitive than normal > > > configs, I > > > > > > > think. > > > > > > > > >> The > > > > > > > > >> > >> > current > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > thread > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > pools seem like something of an > > > implementation > > > > > > detail > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> > not > > > > > > > > >> > >> the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > level > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > user-facing quotas should be involved > > with. I > > > > > think > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > >> might > > > > > > > > >> > >> be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> better > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > make this a general request-time throttle > > > with > > > > no > > > > > > > > >> mention in > > > > > > > > >> > >> the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > naming > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > about I/O threads and simply acknowledge > > the > > > > > > current > > > > > > > > >> > >> limitation > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> (which > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > we > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > may someday fix) in the docs that this > > covers > > > > > only > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> time > > > > > > > > >> > >> after > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > thread is read off the network. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > 3. As such I think the right interface to > > the > > > > > user > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> something > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > like percent_request_time and be in > > > {0,...100} > > > > or > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> request_time_ratio > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > and be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > in {0.0,...,1.0} (I think "ratio" is the > > > > > > terminology > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > >> used > > > > > > > > >> > >> if > > > > > > > > >> > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > scale > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > is between 0 and 1 in the other metrics, > > > > right?) > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > -Jay > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:45 AM, Rajini > > Sivaram > > > < > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > Guozhang/Dong, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > Thank you for the feedback. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > Guozhang : I have updated the section on > > > > > > co-existence > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > >> byte > > > > > > > > >> > >> rate > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > request time quotas. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > Dong: I hadn't added much detail to the > > > metrics > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> sensors > > > > > > > > >> > >> since > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> they > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > are > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > going to be very similar to the existing > > > metrics > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> sensors. > > > > > > > > >> > >> To > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> avoid > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > confusion, I have now added more detail. > All > > > > > metrics > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > > > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> group > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > "quotaType" and all sensors have names > > > starting > > > > > with > > > > > > > > >> > >> "quotaType" > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> (where > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > quotaType is Produce/Fetch/ > > LeaderReplication/ > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > FollowerReplication/*IOThread*). > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > So there will be no reuse of existing > > > > > > metrics/sensors. > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > >> > new > > > > > > > > >> > >> > ones > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > request processing time based throttling > > will > > > be > > > > > > > > >> completely > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> independent > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > existing metrics/sensors, but will be > > > consistent > > > > > in > > > > > > > > >> format. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > The existing throttle_time_ms field in > > > > > produce/fetch > > > > > > > > >> > responses > > > > > > > > >> > >> > will > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> not > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > impacted by this KIP. That will continue > to > > > > return > > > > > > > > >> byte-rate > > > > > > > > >> > >> based > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > throttling times. In addition, a new field > > > > > > > > >> > >> > request_throttle_time_ms > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > will > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > added to return request quota based > > throttling > > > > > > times. > > > > > > > > >> These > > > > > > > > >> > >> will > > > > > > > > >> > >> > be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > exposed > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > as new metrics on the client-side. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > Since all metrics and sensors are > different > > > for > > > > > each > > > > > > > > type > > > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > quota, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> I > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > believe there is already sufficient > metrics > > to > > > > > > monitor > > > > > > > > >> > >> throttling > > > > > > > > >> > >> > on > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > both > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > client and broker side for each type of > > > > > throttling. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Dong Lin > < > > > > > > > > >> > lindon...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > Hey Rajini, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > I think it makes a lot of sense to use > > > > > > > io_thread_units > > > > > > > > >> as > > > > > > > > >> > >> metric > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > quota > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > user's traffic here. LGTM overall. I > have > > > some > > > > > > > > questions > > > > > > > > >> > >> > regarding > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > sensors. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > - Can you be more specific in the KIP > what > > > > > sensors > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > added? > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> For > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > example, it will be useful to specify > the > > > name > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> > >> attributes of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > these > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > new > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > sensors. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > - We currently have throttle-time and > > > > queue-size > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > >> > >> byte-rate > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> based > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > quota. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > Are you going to have separate > > throttle-time > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> queue-size > > > > > > > > >> > >> for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > requests > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > throttled by io_thread_unit-based quota, > > or > > > > will > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > >> share > > > > > > > > >> > >> the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> same > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > sensor? > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > - Does the throttle-time in the > > > > ProduceResponse > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > FetchResponse > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > contains > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > time due to io_thread_unit-based quota? > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > - Currently kafka server doesn't not > > provide > > > > any > > > > > > log > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > >> > >> metrics > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> that > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > tells > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > whether any given clientId (or user) is > > > > > throttled. > > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > > > >> > >> not > > > > > > > > >> > >> > too > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > bad > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > because we can still check the > client-side > > > > > > byte-rate > > > > > > > > >> metric > > > > > > > > >> > >> to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > validate > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > whether a given client is throttled. But > > > with > > > > > this > > > > > > > > >> > >> > io_thread_unit, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > there > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > will be no way to validate whether a > given > > > > > client > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> slow > > > > > > > > >> > >> > because > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> it > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > has > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > exceeded its io_thread_unit limit. It is > > > > > necessary > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > >> user > > > > > > > > >> > >> to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > able > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > know this information to figure how > > whether > > > > they > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > >> > reached > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> there > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > quota > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > limit. How about we add log4j log on the > > > > server > > > > > > side > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> periodically > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > print > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > the (client_id, byte-rate-throttle-time, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > io-thread-unit-throttle-time) > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > so > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > that kafka administrator can figure > those > > > > users > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > >> have > > > > > > > > >> > >> > reached > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > their > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > limit and act accordingly? > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > Dong > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:46 PM, > Guozhang > > > > Wang < > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> wangg...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > Made a pass over the doc, overall LGTM > > > > except > > > > > a > > > > > > > > minor > > > > > > > > >> > >> comment > > > > > > > > >> > >> > on > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > throttling implementation: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > Stated as "Request processing time > > > > throttling > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> > >> applied > > > > > > > > >> > >> > on > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > top > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > if > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > necessary." I thought that it meant > the > > > > > request > > > > > > > > >> > processing > > > > > > > > >> > >> > time > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > throttling > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > is applied first, but continue > reading I > > > > found > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > >> > actually > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> meant to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > apply > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > produce / fetch byte rate throttling > > > first. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > Also the last sentence "The remaining > > > delay > > > > if > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> > >> applied > > > > > > > > >> > >> > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > response." is a bit confusing to me. > > Maybe > > > > > > > rewording > > > > > > > > >> it a > > > > > > > > >> > >> bit? > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Jun > > Rao < > > > > > > > > >> > j...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Hi, Rajini, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Thanks for the updated KIP. The > latest > > > > > > proposal > > > > > > > > >> looks > > > > > > > > >> > >> good > > > > > > > > >> > >> > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> me. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:19 PM, > > Rajini > > > > > > Sivaram > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > Jun/Roger, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > Thank you for the feedback. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > 1. I have updated the KIP to use > > > > absolute > > > > > > > units > > > > > > > > >> > >> instead of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > percentage. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > property is called* > io_thread_units* > > > to > > > > > > align > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> thread > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > count > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > property *num.io.threads*. When we > > > > > implement > > > > > > > > >> network > > > > > > > > >> > >> > thread > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > utilization > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > quotas, we can add another > property > > > > > > > > >> > >> > *network_thread_units.* > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > 2. ControlledShutdown is already > > > listed > > > > > > under > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> exempt > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > requests. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > Jun, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > did > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > you mean a different request that > > > needs > > > > to > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> added? > > > > > > > > >> > >> The > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> four > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > requests > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > currently exempt in the KIP are > > > > > StopReplica, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > ControlledShutdown, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > LeaderAndIsr and UpdateMetadata. > > These > > > > are > > > > > > > > >> controlled > > > > > > > > >> > >> > using > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > ClusterAction > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > ACL, so it is easy to exclude and > > only > > > > > > > throttle > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > unauthorized. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > I > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > wasn't > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > sure if there are other requests > > used > > > > only > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > inter-broker > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > that > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > needed > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > be excluded. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > 3. I was thinking the smallest > > change > > > > > would > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> replace > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> all > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > references > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > *requestChannel.sendResponse()* > > with > > > a > > > > > > local > > > > > > > > >> method > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > *sendResponseMaybeThrottle()* that > > > does > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > throttling > > > > > > > > >> > >> if > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> any > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > plus > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > send > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > response. If we throttle first in > > > > > > > > >> > *KafkaApis.handle()*, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > time > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > spent > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > within the method handling the > > request > > > > > will > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > recorded > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> or > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > used > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > in > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > throttling. We can look into this > > > again > > > > > when > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> PR > > > > > > > > >> > is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > ready > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > review. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 5:55 PM, > > Roger > > > > > > Hoover > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > roger.hoo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Great to see this KIP and the > > > > excellent > > > > > > > > >> discussion. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > To me, Jun's suggestion makes > > sense. > > > > If > > > > > > my > > > > > > > > >> > >> application > > > > > > > > >> > >> > is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > allocated > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > 1 > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > request handler unit, then it's > as > > > if > > > > I > > > > > > > have a > > > > > > > > >> > Kafka > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> broker > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > with > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > single > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > request handler thread dedicated > > to > > > > me. > > > > > > > > That's > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > most I > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > can > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > use, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > at > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > least. That allocation doesn't > > > change > > > > > > even > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > >> an > > > > > > > > >> > >> admin > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> later > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > increases > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > size of the request thread pool > on > > > the > > > > > > > broker. > > > > > > > > >> > It's > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> similar > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > CPU > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > abstraction that VMs and > > containers > > > > get > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > >> > >> hypervisors > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> or > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > OS > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > schedulers. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > While different client access > > > patterns > > > > > can > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > >> > wildly > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > different > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > amounts > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > request thread resources per > > > request, > > > > a > > > > > > > given > > > > > > > > >> > >> > application > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > will > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > generally > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > have a stable access pattern and > > can > > > > > > figure > > > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> empirically > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > how > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > many > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > "request thread units" it needs > to > > > > meet > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > throughput/latency > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > goals. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Roger > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:53 AM, > > Jun > > > > > Rao < > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> j...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi, Rajini, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the updated KIP. A > > few > > > > more > > > > > > > > >> comments. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > 1. A concern of > > > request_time_percent > > > > > is > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > >> it's > > > > > > > > >> > >> not > > > > > > > > >> > >> > an > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > absolute > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > value. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > Let's say you give a user a > 10% > > > > limit. > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > admin > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> doubles > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > number > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > request handler threads, that > > user > > > > now > > > > > > > > >> actually > > > > > > > > >> > has > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> twice > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > absolute > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > capacity. This may confuse > > people > > > a > > > > > bit. > > > > > > > So, > > > > > > > > >> > >> perhaps > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > setting > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > quota > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > based on an absolute request > > > thread > > > > > unit > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> > better. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > 2. ControlledShutdownRequest > is > > > also > > > > > an > > > > > > > > >> > >> inter-broker > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > request > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > needs > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > be excluded from throttling. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > 3. Implementation wise, I am > > > > wondering > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > >> > >> simpler > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > apply > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > time throttling first in > > > > > > > KafkaApis.handle(). > > > > > > > > >> > >> > Otherwise, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> we > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > will > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > need > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > add > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > the throttling logic in each > > type > > > of > > > > > > > > request. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 5:58 > AM, > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > >> Sivaram < > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Jun, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > I have reverted to the > > original > > > > KIP > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > >> > >> throttles > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> based > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > on > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > request > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > handler > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > utilization. At the moment, > it > > > > uses > > > > > > > > >> percentage, > > > > > > > > >> > >> but > > > > > > > > >> > >> > I > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> am > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > happy > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > change > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > a fraction (out of 1 instead > > of > > > > 100) > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > >> > >> required. I > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> have > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > added > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > examples > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > from this discussion to the > > KIP. > > > > > Also > > > > > > > > added > > > > > > > > >> a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > "Future > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > Work" > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > section > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > address network thread > > > > utilization. > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > >> > >> > configuration > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > named > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > "request_time_percent" with > > the > > > > > > > > expectation > > > > > > > > >> > that > > > > > > > > >> > >> it > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> can > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > also > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > limit for network thread > > > > utilization > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > >> that > > > > > > > > >> > is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > implemented, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > so > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > users have to set only one > > > config > > > > > for > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> two > > > > > > > > >> > and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > not > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > have > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > worry > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > the internal distribution of > > the > > > > > work > > > > > > > > >> between > > > > > > > > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > two > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > thread > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > pools > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Kafka. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at > 12:23 > > > AM, > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > Rao > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > j...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Rajini, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the proposal. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The benefit of using the > > > request > > > > > > > > >> processing > > > > > > > > >> > >> time > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> over > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > request > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > rate > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly what people have > > > said. I > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > >> > >> expand > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> that > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > bit. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Consider > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > following case. The > producer > > > > > sends a > > > > > > > > >> produce > > > > > > > > >> > >> > request > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > with a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > 10MB > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > message > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > but compressed to 100KB > with > > > > gzip. > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> decompression of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > message > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > broker could take 10-15 > > > seconds, > > > > > > > during > > > > > > > > >> which > > > > > > > > >> > >> > time, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > request > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > handler > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > thread is completely > > blocked. > > > In > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > >> case, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > neither > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > byte-in > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > quota > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > nor > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the request rate quota may > > be > > > > > > > effective > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> protecting > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > broker. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Consider > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > another case. A consumer > > group > > > > > > starts > > > > > > > > >> with 10 > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> instances > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > later > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > switches to 20 instances. > > The > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > rate > > > > > > > > >> > will > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> likely > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > double, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > actually load on the > broker > > > may > > > > > not > > > > > > > > double > > > > > > > > >> > >> since > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> each > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > fetch > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contains half of the > > > partitions. > > > > > > > Request > > > > > > > > >> rate > > > > > > > > >> > >> > quota > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> may > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > not > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > easy > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > configure in this case. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > What we really want is to > be > > > > able > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> prevent > > > > > > > > >> > a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> client > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > from > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > using > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > too > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > much > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > of the server side > > resources. > > > In > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > >> > >> particular > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> KIP, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > this > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > resource > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > capacity of the request > > > handler > > > > > > > > threads. I > > > > > > > > >> > >> agree > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> that > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > it > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > may > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > not > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > intuitive for the users to > > > > > determine > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > > > >> > set > > > > > > > > >> > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > right > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > limit. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > However, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > this is not completely new > > and > > > > has > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > >> done > > > > > > > > >> > in > > > > > > > > >> > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > container > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > world > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > already. For example, > Linux > > > > > cgroup ( > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > https://access.redhat.com/ > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_En > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> terprise_Linux/6/html/ > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resource_Management_Guide/sec- > > > > > > > cpu.html) > > > > > > > > >> has > > > > > > > > >> > >> the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > concept > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > cpu.cfs_quota_us, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > which specifies the total > > > amount > > > > > of > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > microseconds > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > tasks in a cgroup can run > > > > during a > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > >> second > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> period. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > We > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > can > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > potentially > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > model the request handler > > > > threads > > > > > > in a > > > > > > > > >> > similar > > > > > > > > >> > >> > way. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> For > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > example, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > request handler thread can > > be > > > 1 > > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > >> > handler > > > > > > > > >> > >> > unit > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > admin > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > configure a limit on how > > many > > > > > units > > > > > > > (say > > > > > > > > >> > 0.01) > > > > > > > > >> > >> a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> client > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > can > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > have. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding not throttling > the > > > > > > internal > > > > > > > > >> broker > > > > > > > > >> > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> broker > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > requests. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > do that. Alternatively, we > > > could > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > let > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > admin > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > configure a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > high > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > limit > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > for the kafka user (it may > > not > > > > be > > > > > > able > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> do > > > > > > > > >> > >> that > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > easily > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > based > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > on > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > clientId > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > though). > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Ideally we want to be able > > to > > > > > > protect > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> utilization > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > network > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > pool too. The difficult is > > > > mostly > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > >> Rajini > > > > > > > > >> > >> > said: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> (1) > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > The > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > mechanism > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > throttling the requests is > > > > through > > > > > > > > >> Purgatory > > > > > > > > >> > >> and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > we > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > will > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > have > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > through how to integrate > > that > > > > into > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > network > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> layer. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > (2) > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > In > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > network > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > layer, currently we know > the > > > > user, > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> clientId > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > request. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > So, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's a bit tricky to > > throttle > > > > > based > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > >> > clientId > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> there. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > Plus, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > byteOut > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > quota can already protect > > the > > > > > > network > > > > > > > > >> thread > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > utilization > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > fetch > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > requests. So, if we can't > > > figure > > > > > out > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > >> > part > > > > > > > > >> > >> > right > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > now, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > just > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > focusing > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the request handling > threads > > > for > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > KIP > > > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > still a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > useful > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > feature. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at > 4:27 > > > AM, > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > >> > >> Sivaram < > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you all for the > > > > feedback. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jay: I have removed > > > exemption > > > > > for > > > > > > > > >> consumer > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> heartbeat > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > etc. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > Agree > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > protecting the cluster > is > > > more > > > > > > > > important > > > > > > > > >> > than > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > protecting > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > individual > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > apps. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Have retained the > > exemption > > > > for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > StopReplicat/LeaderAndIsr > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > etc, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > throttled only if > > > > authorization > > > > > > > fails > > > > > > > > >> (so > > > > > > > > >> > >> can't > > > > > > > > >> > >> > be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > used > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > DoS > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > attacks > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a secure cluster, but > > allows > > > > > > > > >> inter-broker > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> requests to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > complete > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > delays). > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I will wait another day > to > > > see > > > > > if > > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > > > >> > >> any > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > objection > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > quotas > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > request processing time > > (as > > > > > > opposed > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> request > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> rate) > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > if > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > objections, I will > revert > > to > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> original > > > > > > > > >> > >> > proposal > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > with > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > some > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > changes. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > The original proposal > was > > > only > > > > > > > > including > > > > > > > > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > time > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > used > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > by > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > handler threads (that > made > > > > > > > calculation > > > > > > > > >> > >> easy). I > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> think > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > suggestion > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > include the time spent > in > > > the > > > > > > > network > > > > > > > > >> > >> threads as > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> well > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > since > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > significant. As Jay > > pointed > > > > out, > > > > > > it > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> more > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > complicated > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > calculate > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > total available CPU time > > and > > > > > > convert > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> a > > > > > > > > >> > >> ratio > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> when > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > there > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > *m* > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > I/O > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > threads > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and *n* network threads. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > ThreadMXBean#getThreadCPUTime( > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > ) > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > may > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > give > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > us > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > we want, but it can be > > very > > > > > > > expensive > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > >> > some > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > platforms. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > As > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > Becket > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang have pointed > out, > > > we > > > > do > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > >> > several > > > > > > > > >> > >> > time > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > measurements > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > generating metrics that > we > > > > could > > > > > > > use, > > > > > > > > >> > though > > > > > > > > >> > >> we > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> might > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > want > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > switch > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > nanoTime() instead of > > > > > > > > >> currentTimeMillis() > > > > > > > > >> > >> since > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> some > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > values > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > small requests may be < > > 1ms. > > > > But > > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > >> > than > > > > > > > > >> > >> add > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> up > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > time > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > spent > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > I/O > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread and network > thread, > > > > > > wouldn't > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > > > >> > >> better > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > convert > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > spent > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > on each thread into a > > > separate > > > > > > > ratio? > > > > > > > > >> UserA > > > > > > > > >> > >> has > > > > > > > > >> > >> > a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > request > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > quota > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > 5%. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Can > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > we take that to mean > that > > > > UserA > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > >> 5% > > > > > > > > >> > of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > time > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > on > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > network > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > threads > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and 5% of the time on > I/O > > > > > threads? > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > >> > either > > > > > > > > >> > >> is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > exceeded, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > response > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > throttled - it would > mean > > > > > > > maintaining > > > > > > > > >> two > > > > > > > > >> > >> sets > > > > > > > > >> > >> > of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > metrics > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > durations, but would > > result > > > in > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > >> > >> meaningful > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > ratios. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > We > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > could > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > define > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > quota limits (UserA has > 5% > > > of > > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > >> > threads > > > > > > > > >> > >> > and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> 10% > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > network > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > threads), > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but that seems > unnecessary > > > and > > > > > > > harder > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> explain > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > users. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Back to why and how > quotas > > > are > > > > > > > applied > > > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > network > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > thread > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > utilization: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a) In the case of fetch, > > > the > > > > > time > > > > > > > > >> spent in > > > > > > > > >> > >> the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > network > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > significant and I can > see > > > the > > > > > need > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > include > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> this. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > Are > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > there > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requests where the > network > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > >> > >> utilization is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > significant? > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > In > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > case > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of fetch, request > handler > > > > thread > > > > > > > > >> > utilization > > > > > > > > >> > >> > would > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > throttle > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > clients > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > high request rate, low > > data > > > > > volume > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> > fetch > > > > > > > > >> > >> > byte > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > rate > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > quota > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > throttle > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > clients with high data > > > volume. > > > > > > > Network > > > > > > > > >> > thread > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > utilization > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > perhaps > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > proportional to the data > > > > > volume. I > > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > >> > >> wondering > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> if we > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > even > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > need > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > throttle > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > based on network thread > > > > > > utilization > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > >> > >> whether > > > > > > > > >> > >> > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > data > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > volume > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > quota > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > covers > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > this case. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > b) At the moment, we > > record > > > > and > > > > > > > check > > > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > > > >> > >> quota > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > violation > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > at > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If a quota is violated, > > the > > > > > > response > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> > >> delayed. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > Using > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > Jay'e > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > example > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > disk reads for fetches > > > > happening > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> network > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > thread, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > We > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > can't > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > record > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > delay a response after > the > > > > disk > > > > > > > reads. > > > > > > > > >> We > > > > > > > > >> > >> could > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > record > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > time > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > spent > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the network thread when > > the > > > > > > response > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> > >> complete > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > introduce > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > delay > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > handling a subsequent > > > request > > > > > > > > (separate > > > > > > > > >> out > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> recording > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > quota > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > violation > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > handling in the case of > > > > network > > > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > >> > >> > overload). > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > Does > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > that > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > sense? > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at > > 2:58 > > > > AM, > > > > > > > > Becket > > > > > > > > >> > Qin < > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > becket....@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Jay, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, I agree that > > > enforcing > > > > > the > > > > > > > CPU > > > > > > > > >> time > > > > > > > > >> > >> is a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > little > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > tricky. I > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > am > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thinking > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that maybe we can use > > the > > > > > > existing > > > > > > > > >> > request > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > statistics. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > They > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > very detailed so we > can > > > > > probably > > > > > > > see > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > approximate > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > CPU > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > time > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > it, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > e.g. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > something like > > > (total_time - > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > request/response_queue_time > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > - > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > remote_time). > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Guozhang > > that > > > > > when > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > >> user is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> throttled > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > it > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > likely > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > need to see if > anything > > > has > > > > > went > > > > > > > > wrong > > > > > > > > >> > >> first, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > if > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > well > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaving and just need > > > more > > > > > > > > >> resources, we > > > > > > > > >> > >> will > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> have > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > bump > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > quota > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for them. It is true > > that > > > > > > > > >> pre-allocating > > > > > > > > >> > >> CPU > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> time > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > quota > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > precisely > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > users is difficult. So > > in > > > > > > practice > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > >> > would > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > probably > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > be > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > more > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > set > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a relative high > > protective > > > > CPU > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > >> quota > > > > > > > > >> > >> for > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > everyone > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > increase > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for some individual > > > clients > > > > on > > > > > > > > demand. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 > at > > > 5:48 > > > > > PM, > > > > > > > > >> Guozhang > > > > > > > > >> > >> > Wang < > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a great > > > proposal, > > > > > glad > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> see > > > > > > > > >> > it > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > happening. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am inclined to the > > CPU > > > > > > > > >> throttling, or > > > > > > > > >> > >> more > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > specifically > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > processing > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ratio instead of the > > > > request > > > > > > > rate > > > > > > > > >> > >> throttling > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> as > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > well. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Becket > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > well > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > summed my rationales > > > > above, > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > >> > >> thing to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> add > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > here > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > former > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has a good support > for > > > > both > > > > > > > > >> "protecting > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> against > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > rogue > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > clients" > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > well > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "utilizing a cluster > > for > > > > > > > > >> multi-tenancy > > > > > > > > >> > >> > usage": > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > when > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > thinking > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain this to the > > end > > > > > > users, I > > > > > > > > >> find > > > > > > > > >> > it > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> actually > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > more > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > natural > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > request rate since > as > > > > > > mentioned > > > > > > > > >> above, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> different > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > requests > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > quite > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different "cost", > and > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > today > > > > > > > > >> > already > > > > > > > > >> > >> > have > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > various > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > types > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (produce, fetch, > > admin, > > > > > > > metadata, > > > > > > > > >> etc), > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> because > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > of > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > that > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > rate > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throttling may not > be > > as > > > > > > > effective > > > > > > > > >> > >> unless it > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > set > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > very > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conservatively. > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding to user > > > > reactions > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > >> they > > > > > > > > >> > are > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > throttled, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > I > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > differ > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case-by-case, and > need > > > to > > > > be > > > > > > > > >> > discovered / > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> guided > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > by > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > looking > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > relative > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > metrics. So in other > > > words > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > >> would > > > > > > > > >> > >> not > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> expect > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > to > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > get > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > additional > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information by > simply > > > > being > > > > > > told > > > > > > > > >> "hey, > > > > > > > > >> > >> you > > > > > > > > >> > >> > are > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > throttled", > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what throttling > does; > > > they > > > > > > need > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >> > take a > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > follow-up > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > step > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > see > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > "hmm, > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throttled probably > > > because > > > > > of > > > > > > > ..", > > > > > > > > >> > which > > > > > > > > >> > >> is > > > > > > > > >> > >> > by > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > looking > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > at > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > metric > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values: e.g. whether > > I'm > > > > > > > > bombarding > > > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> brokers > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > with > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Message clipped] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >