Hey Jan, Sorry for the frustration. I haven't finished replying to all comments. For example in my last email it is mentioned that "I will reply after I finish reading the documentation and code". It takes time to think through comments thoroughly. I have been busy with my daily work and haven't had time to reply to all comments.
I have some quick rely to your comments. It is true that some space will be wasted with the current approach in the KIP for log compacted topics. But it does not actually affect correctness. If the goal is to save space for log compacted topics after partition change, there can be a couple other approaches as Jun mentioned. And these can be done separately outside this KIP. Even if we use the data copying approach to address problem for log compacted topics, it may still worth using the linear hashing to address problem for non-log compacted topics to avoid copying large amount of data. What do you think? Can you also take a look at Jun's comments? Thanks, Dong On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Jan Filipiak <jan.filip...@trivago.com> wrote: > Hi Dong, > > are you actually reading my emails, or are you just using the thread I > started for general announcements regarding the KIP? > > I tried to argue really hard against linear hashing. Growing the topic by > an integer factor does not require any state redistribution at all. I fail > to see completely where linear hashing helps on log compacted topics. > > If you are not willing to explain to me what I might be overlooking: that > is fine. > But I ask you to not reply to my emails then. Please understand my > frustration with this. > > Best Jan > > > > On 06.03.2018 19:38, Dong Lin wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> Thanks for all the comments! It appears that everyone prefers linear >> hashing because it reduces the amount of state that needs to be moved >> between consumers (for stream processing). The KIP has been updated to use >> linear hashing. >> >> Regarding the migration endeavor: it seems that migrating producer library >> to use linear hashing should be pretty straightforward without >> much operational endeavor. If we don't upgrade client library to use this >> KIP, we can not support in-order delivery after partition is changed >> anyway. Suppose we upgrade client library to use this KIP, if partition >> number is not changed, the key -> partition mapping will be exactly the >> same as it is now because it is still determined using murmur_hash(key) % >> original_partition_num. In other words, this change is backward >> compatible. >> >> Regarding the load distribution: if we use linear hashing, the load may be >> unevenly distributed because those partitions which are not split may >> receive twice as much traffic as other partitions that are split. This >> issue can be mitigated by creating topic with partitions that are several >> times the number of consumers. And there will be no imbalance if the >> partition number is always doubled. So this imbalance seems acceptable. >> >> Regarding storing the partition strategy as per-topic config: It seems not >> necessary since we can still use murmur_hash as the default hash function >> and additionally apply the linear hashing algorithm if the partition >> number >> has increased. Not sure if there is any use-case for producer to use a >> different hash function. Jason, can you check if there is some use-case >> that I missed for using the per-topic partition strategy? >> >> Regarding how to reduce latency (due to state store/load) in stream >> processing consumer when partition number changes: I need to read the >> Kafka >> Stream code to understand how Kafka Stream currently migrate state between >> consumers when the application is added/removed for a given job. I will >> reply after I finish reading the documentation and code. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Dong >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> >> wrote: >> >> Great discussion. I think I'm wondering whether we can continue to leave >>> Kafka agnostic to the partitioning strategy. The challenge is >>> communicating >>> the partitioning logic from producers to consumers so that the >>> dependencies >>> between each epoch can be determined. For the sake of discussion, imagine >>> you did something like the following: >>> >>> 1. The name (and perhaps version) of a partitioning strategy is stored in >>> topic configuration when a topic is created. >>> 2. The producer looks up the partitioning strategy before writing to a >>> topic and includes it in the produce request (for fencing). If it doesn't >>> have an implementation for the configured strategy, it fails. >>> 3. The consumer also looks up the partitioning strategy and uses it to >>> determine dependencies when reading a new epoch. It could either fail or >>> make the most conservative dependency assumptions if it doesn't know how >>> to >>> implement the partitioning strategy. For the consumer, the new interface >>> might look something like this: >>> >>> // Return the partition dependencies following an epoch bump >>> Map<Integer, List<Integer>> dependencies(int >>> numPartitionsBeforeEpochBump, >>> int numPartitionsAfterEpochBump) >>> >>> The unordered case then is just a particular implementation which never >>> has >>> any epoch dependencies. To implement this, we would need some way for the >>> consumer to find out how many partitions there were in each epoch, but >>> maybe that's not too unreasonable. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jason >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 4:51 AM, Jan Filipiak <jan.filip...@trivago.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dong >>>> >>>> thank you very much for your questions. >>>> >>>> regarding the time spend copying data across: >>>> It is correct that copying data from a topic with one partition mapping >>>> >>> to >>> >>>> a topic with a different partition mapping takes way longer than we can >>>> stop producers. Tens of minutes is a very optimistic estimate here. Many >>>> people can not afford copy full steam and therefore will have some rate >>>> limiting in place, this can bump the timespan into the day's. The good >>>> >>> part >>> >>>> is that the vast majority of the data can be copied while the producers >>>> >>> are >>> >>>> still going. One can then, piggyback the consumers ontop of this >>>> >>> timeframe, >>> >>>> by the method mentioned (provide them an mapping from their old offsets >>>> >>> to >>> >>>> new offsets in their repartitioned topics. In that way we separate >>>> migration of consumers from migration of producers (decoupling these is >>>> what kafka is strongest at). The time to actually swap over the >>>> producers >>>> should be kept minimal by ensuring that when a swap attempt is started >>>> >>> the >>> >>>> consumer copying over should be very close to the log end and is >>>> expected >>>> to finish within the next fetch. The operation should have a time-out >>>> and >>>> should be "reattemtable". >>>> >>>> Importance of logcompaction: >>>> If a producer produces key A, to partiton 0, its forever gonna be there, >>>> unless it gets deleted. The record might sit in there for years. A new >>>> producer started with the new partitions will fail to delete the record >>>> >>> in >>> >>>> the correct partition. Th record will be there forever and one can not >>>> reliable bootstrap new consumers. I cannot see how linear hashing can >>>> >>> solve >>> >>>> this. >>>> >>>> Regarding your skipping of userland copying: >>>> 100%, copying the data across in userland is, as far as i can see, only >>>> a >>>> usecase for log compacted topics. Even for logcompaction + retentions it >>>> should only be opt-in. Why did I bring it up? I think log compaction is >>>> a >>>> very important feature to really embrace kafka as a "data plattform". >>>> The >>>> point I also want to make is that copying data this way is completely >>>> inline with the kafka architecture. it only consists of reading and >>>> >>> writing >>> >>>> to topics. >>>> >>>> I hope it clarifies more why I think we should aim for more than the >>>> current KIP. I fear that once the KIP is done not much more effort will >>>> >>> be >>> >>>> taken. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 04.03.2018 02:28, Dong Lin wrote: >>>> >>>> Hey Jan, >>>>> >>>>> In the current proposal, the consumer will be blocked on waiting for >>>>> >>>> other >>> >>>> consumers of the group to consume up to a given offset. In most cases, >>>>> >>>> all >>> >>>> consumers should be close to the LEO of the partitions when the >>>>> >>>> partition >>> >>>> expansion happens. Thus the time waiting should not be long e.g. on the >>>>> order of seconds. On the other hand, it may take a long time to wait >>>>> for >>>>> the entire partition to be copied -- the amount of time is proportional >>>>> >>>> to >>> >>>> the amount of existing data in the partition, which can take tens of >>>>> minutes. So the amount of time that we stop consumers may not be on the >>>>> same order of magnitude. >>>>> >>>>> If we can implement this suggestion without copying data over in purse >>>>> userland, it will be much more valuable. Do you have ideas on how this >>>>> >>>> can >>> >>>> be done? >>>>> >>>>> Not sure why the current KIP not help people who depend on log >>>>> >>>> compaction. >>> >>>> Could you elaborate more on this point? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Dong >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Jan Filipiak<Jan.Filipiak@trivago. >>>>> com >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Dong, >>>>> >>>>>> I tried to focus on what the steps are one can currently perform to >>>>>> expand >>>>>> or shrink a keyed topic while maintaining a top notch semantics. >>>>>> I can understand that there might be confusion about "stopping the >>>>>> consumer". It is exactly the same as proposed in the KIP. there needs >>>>>> >>>>> to >>> >>>> be >>>>>> a time the producers agree on the new partitioning. The extra >>>>>> >>>>> semantics I >>> >>>> want to put in there is that we have a possibility to wait until all >>>>>> >>>>> the >>> >>>> existing data >>>>>> is copied over into the new partitioning scheme. When I say stopping I >>>>>> think more of having a memory barrier that ensures the ordering. I am >>>>>> still >>>>>> aming for latencies on the scale of leader failovers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Consumers have to explicitly adapt the new partitioning scheme in the >>>>>> above scenario. The reason is that in these cases where you are >>>>>> >>>>> dependent >>> >>>> on a particular partitioning scheme, you also have other topics that >>>>>> >>>>> have >>> >>>> co-partition enforcements or the kind -frequently. Therefore all your >>>>>> other >>>>>> input topics might need to grow accordingly. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What I was suggesting was to streamline all these operations as best >>>>>> as >>>>>> possible to have "real" partition grow and shrinkage going on. >>>>>> >>>>> Migrating >>> >>>> the producers to a new partitioning scheme can be much more streamlined >>>>>> with proper broker support for this. Migrating consumer is a step that >>>>>> might be made completly unnecessary if - for example streams - takes >>>>>> >>>>> the >>> >>>> gcd as partitioning scheme instead of enforcing 1 to 1. Connect >>>>>> >>>>> consumers >>> >>>> and other consumers should be fine anyways. >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope this makes more clear where I was aiming at. The rest needs to >>>>>> >>>>> be >>> >>>> figured out. The only danger i see is that when we are introducing this >>>>>> feature as supposed in the KIP, it wont help any people depending on >>>>>> >>>>> log >>> >>>> compaction. >>>>>> >>>>>> The other thing I wanted to mention is that I believe the current >>>>>> suggestion (without copying data over) can be implemented in pure >>>>>> userland >>>>>> with a custom partitioner and a small feedbackloop from >>>>>> ProduceResponse >>>>>> => >>>>>> Partitionier in coorporation with a change management system. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Jan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28.02.2018 07:13, Dong Lin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey Jan, >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not sure if it is acceptable for producer to be stopped for a >>>>>>> while, >>>>>>> particularly for online application which requires low latency. I am >>>>>>> also >>>>>>> not sure how consumers can switch to a new topic. Does user >>>>>>> >>>>>> application >>> >>>> needs to explicitly specify a different topic for producer/consumer to >>>>>>> subscribe to? It will be helpful for discussion if you can provide >>>>>>> >>>>>> more >>> >>>> detail on the interface change for this solution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Dong >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Jan Filipiak<Jan.Filipiak@trivago. >>>>>>> >>>>>> com >>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> just want to throw my though in. In general the functionality is very >>>>>>>> usefull, we should though not try to find the architecture to hard >>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>> implementing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The manual steps would be to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> create a new topic >>>>>>>> the mirrormake from the new old topic to the new topic >>>>>>>> wait for mirror making to catch up. >>>>>>>> then put the consumers onto the new topic >>>>>>>> (having mirrormaker spit out a mapping from old offsets to >>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>> offsets: >>>>>>>> if topic is increased by factor X there is gonna be a >>>>>>>> clean >>>>>>>> mapping from 1 offset in the old topic to X offsets in the new >>>>>>>> topic, >>>>>>>> if there is no factor then there is no chance to >>>>>>>> generate a >>>>>>>> mapping that can be reasonable used for continuing) >>>>>>>> make consumers stop at appropriate points and continue >>>>>>>> consumption >>>>>>>> with offsets from the mapping. >>>>>>>> have the producers stop for a minimal time. >>>>>>>> wait for mirrormaker to finish >>>>>>>> let producer produce with the new metadata. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Instead of implementing the approach suggest in the KIP which will >>>>>>>> leave >>>>>>>> log compacted topic completely crumbled and unusable. >>>>>>>> I would much rather try to build infrastructure to support the >>>>>>>> mentioned >>>>>>>> above operations more smoothly. >>>>>>>> Especially having producers stop and use another topic is difficult >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> and >>> >>>> it would be nice if one can trigger "invalid metadata" exceptions for >>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> if one could give topics aliases so that their produces with the old >>>>>>>> topic >>>>>>>> will arrive in the new topic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The downsides are obvious I guess ( having the same data twice for >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> the >>> >>>> transition period, but kafka tends to scale well with datasize). So >>>>>>>> its a >>>>>>>> nicer fit into the architecture. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I further want to argument that the functionality by the KIP can >>>>>>>> completely be implementing in "userland" with a custom partitioner >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> that >>> >>>> handles the transition as needed. I would appreciate if someone could >>>>>>>> point >>>>>>>> out what a custom partitioner couldn't handle in this case? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With the above approach, shrinking a topic becomes the same steps. >>>>>>>> Without >>>>>>>> loosing keys in the discontinued partitions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Would love to hear what everyone thinks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best Jan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11.02.2018 00:35, Dong Lin wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have created KIP-253: Support in-order message delivery with >>>>>>>>> partition >>>>>>>>> expansion. See >>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-253% >>>>>>>>> 3A+Support+in-order+message+delivery+with+partition+expansion >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This KIP provides a way to allow messages of the same key from the >>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>> producer to be consumed in the same order they are produced even if >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> we >>> >>>> expand partition of the topic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Dong >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >
