Hi, Dong, Great finding on the issue. It's a real problem. A few comments about the KIP. (1) I am not sure about updating controller_metadata_epoch on every UpdateMetadataRequest. Currently, the controller can send UpdateMetadataRequest when there is no actual metadata change. Doing this may require unnecessary metadata refresh on the client. (2) controller_metadata_epoch is global across all topics. This means that a client may be forced to update its metadata even when the metadata for the topics that it cares haven't changed. (3) It doesn't seem that the KIP handles the corner case when a consumer is restarted. Say a consumer reads from the new leader, commits the offset and then is restarted. On restart, the consumer gets an outdated metadata and fetches from the old leader. Then, the consumer will get into the offset out of range issue.
Given the above, I am thinking of the following approach. We actually already have metadata versioning at the partition level. Each leader has a leader epoch which is monotonically increasing. We can potentially propagate leader epoch back in the metadata response and the clients can cache that. This solves the issue of (1) and (2). To solve (3), when saving an offset, we could save both an offset and the corresponding leader epoch. When fetching the data, the consumer provides both the offset and the leader epoch. A leader will only serve the request if its leader epoch is equal to or greater than the leader epoch from the consumer. To achieve this, we need to change the fetch request protocol and the offset commit api, which requires some more thoughts. Thanks, Jun On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bump up the thread. > > It will be great to have more comments on whether we should do it or > whether there is better way to address the motivation of this KIP. > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't have an interesting rejected alternative solution to put in the > > KIP. If there is good alternative solution from anyone in this thread, I > am > > happy to discuss this and update the KIP accordingly. > > > > Thanks, > > Dong > > > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> It is clearer now. > >> > >> I noticed that Rejected Alternatives section is empty. > >> Have you considered any alternative ? > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Ted, thanks for catching this. I have updated the sentence to make it > >> > readable. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Dong > >> > > >> > On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > bq. It the controller_epoch of the incoming MetadataResponse, or if > >> the > >> > > controller_epoch is the same but the controller_metadata_epoch > >> > > > >> > > Can you update the above sentence so that the intention is clearer ? > >> > > > >> > > Thanks > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Hi all, > >> > > > > >> > > > I have created KIP-232: Detect outdated metadata by adding > >> > > > ControllerMetadataEpoch field: > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > >> > > > 232%3A+Detect+outdated+metadata+by+adding+ > >> > ControllerMetadataEpoch+field > >> > > > . > >> > > > > >> > > > The KIP proposes to add fields in MetadataResponse and > >> > > > UpdateMetadataRequest so that client can reject outdated metadata > >> and > >> > > avoid > >> > > > unnecessary OffsetOutOfRangeException. Otherwise there is > currently > >> > race > >> > > > condition that can cause consumer to reset offset which negatively > >> > affect > >> > > > the consumer's availability. > >> > > > > >> > > > Feedback and suggestions are welcome! > >> > > > > >> > > > Regards, > >> > > > Dong > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
