Thanks Gouzhang - i think another problem with this is that is overloading session.timeout.ms to mean multiple things. I'm not sure that is a good thing.
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 at 17:14 Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > The downside of it, though, is that although it "hides" this from most of > the users needing to be aware of it, by default session timeout i.e. the > rebalance timeout is 10 seconds which could arguably too long. > > > Guozhang > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Just throwing another alternative idea here: we can consider using the > > rebalance timeout value which is already included in the join request > > protocol (and on the current Java client it is always written as the > > session timeout value), that the first member joining will always force > the > > coordinator to wait that long. By doing this we do not need to bump up > the > > protocol either. > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Ismael, > >> > >> Mostly to avoid the protocol bump. > >> > >> I agree that it may be difficult to choose the right delay for all > >> consumer > >> groups, but we wanted to make this something that most users don't > really > >> need to think about, i.e., a small enough default delay that works in > the > >> majority of cases. However it would be much more flexible as a consumer > >> config, which i'm happy to pursue if this change is worthy of a protocol > >> bump. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Damian > >> > >> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 at 12:35 Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks for the KIP, Damian. It makes sense to avoid multiple > rebalances > >> > during start-up. One issue with having this as a broker config is that > >> it > >> > may be difficult to choose the right delay for all consumer groups. > Can > >> you > >> > elaborate a little more on why the first alternative (add a consumer > >> > config) was rejected? We bump protocol versions regularly (when it > makes > >> > sense), so it would be good to get a bit more detail. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Ismael > >> > > >> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi All, > >> > > > >> > > I've prepared a KIP to add a configurable delay to the initial > >> consumer > >> > > group rebalance. > >> > > > >> > > Please have look here: > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > >> > > 134%3A+Delay+initial+consumer+group+rebalance > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Damian > >> > > > >> > > BTW, i apologize if this appears twice. Seems the first one may have > >> not > >> > > made it. > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang >
