Hi Lucas, Seems like the main intent here is to prioritize the controller request over any other requests. In that case, we can change the request queue to a dequeue, where you always insert the normal requests (produce, consume,..etc) to the end of the dequeue, but if its a controller request, you insert it to the head of the queue. This ensures that the controller request will be given higher priority over other requests.
Also since we only read one request from the socket and mute it and only unmute it after handling the request, this would ensure that we don't handle controller requests out of order. With this approach we can avoid the second queue and the additional config for the size of the queue. What do you think ? Thanks, Mayuresh On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:05 AM Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Joel, > > Thank for the detail explanation. I agree the current design makes sense. > My confusion is about whether the new config for the controller queue > capacity is necessary. I cannot think of a case in which users would change > it. > > Thanks, > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Lucas, > > > > I guess my question can be rephrased to "do we expect user to ever change > > the controller request queue capacity"? If we agree that 20 is already a > > very generous default number and we do not expect user to change it, is > it > > still necessary to expose this as a config? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Lucas Wang <lucasatu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> @Becket > >> 1. Thanks for the comment. You are right that normally there should be > >> just > >> one controller request because of muting, > >> and I had NOT intended to say there would be many enqueued controller > >> requests. > >> I went through the KIP again, and I'm not sure which part conveys that > >> info. > >> I'd be happy to revise if you point it out the section. > >> > >> 2. Though it should not happen in normal conditions, the current design > >> does not preclude multiple controllers running > >> at the same time, hence if we don't have the controller queue capacity > >> config and simply make its capacity to be 1, > >> network threads handling requests from different controllers will be > >> blocked during those troublesome times, > >> which is probably not what we want. On the other hand, adding the extra > >> config with a default value, say 20, guards us from issues in those > >> troublesome times, and IMO there isn't much downside of adding the extra > >> config. > >> > >> @Mayuresh > >> Good catch, this sentence is an obsolete statement based on a previous > >> design. I've revised the wording in the KIP. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Lucas > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Mayuresh Gharat < > >> gharatmayures...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Lucas, > >> > > >> > Thanks for the KIP. > >> > I am trying to understand why you think "The memory consumption can > rise > >> > given the total number of queued requests can go up to 2x" in the > impact > >> > section. Normally the requests from controller to a Broker are not > high > >> > volume, right ? > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > > >> > Mayuresh > >> > > >> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 5:06 AM Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Thanks for the KIP, Lucas. Separating the control plane from the > data > >> > plane > >> > > makes a lot of sense. > >> > > > >> > > In the KIP you mentioned that the controller request queue may have > >> many > >> > > requests in it. Will this be a common case? The controller requests > >> still > >> > > goes through the SocketServer. The SocketServer will mute the > channel > >> > once > >> > > a request is read and put into the request channel. So assuming > there > >> is > >> > > only one connection between controller and each broker, on the > broker > >> > side, > >> > > there should be only one controller request in the controller > request > >> > queue > >> > > at any given time. If that is the case, do we need a separate > >> controller > >> > > request queue capacity config? The default value 20 means that we > >> expect > >> > > there are 20 controller switches to happen in a short period of > time. > >> I > >> > am > >> > > not sure whether someone should increase the controller request > queue > >> > > capacity to handle such case, as it seems indicating something very > >> wrong > >> > > has happened. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > > >> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Thanks for the update Lucas. > >> > > > > >> > > > I think the motivation section is intuitive. It will be good to > >> learn > >> > > more > >> > > > about the comments from other reviewers. > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Lucas Wang < > lucasatu...@gmail.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi Dong, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I've updated the motivation section of the KIP by explaining the > >> > cases > >> > > > that > >> > > > > would have user impacts. > >> > > > > Please take a look at let me know your comments. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > Lucas > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 5:53 PM, Lucas Wang < > lucasatu...@gmail.com > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Dong, > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > The simulation of disk being slow is merely for me to easily > >> > > construct > >> > > > a > >> > > > > > testing scenario > >> > > > > > with a backlog of produce requests. In production, other than > >> the > >> > > disk > >> > > > > > being slow, a backlog of > >> > > > > > produce requests may also be caused by high produce QPS. > >> > > > > > In that case, we may not want to kill the broker and that's > when > >> > this > >> > > > KIP > >> > > > > > can be useful, both for JBOD > >> > > > > > and non-JBOD setup. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Going back to your previous question about each ProduceRequest > >> > > covering > >> > > > > 20 > >> > > > > > partitions that are randomly > >> > > > > > distributed, let's say a LeaderAndIsr request is enqueued that > >> > tries > >> > > to > >> > > > > > switch the current broker, say broker0, from leader to > follower > >> > > > > > *for one of the partitions*, say *test-0*. For the sake of > >> > argument, > >> > > > > > let's also assume the other brokers, say broker1, have > *stopped* > >> > > > fetching > >> > > > > > from > >> > > > > > the current broker, i.e. broker0. > >> > > > > > 1. If the enqueued produce requests have acks = -1 (ALL) > >> > > > > > 1.1 without this KIP, the ProduceRequests ahead of > >> LeaderAndISR > >> > > will > >> > > > be > >> > > > > > put into the purgatory, > >> > > > > > and since they'll never be replicated to other brokers > >> > > (because > >> > > > > of > >> > > > > > the assumption made above), they will > >> > > > > > be completed either when the LeaderAndISR request is > >> > > processed > >> > > > or > >> > > > > > when the timeout happens. > >> > > > > > 1.2 With this KIP, broker0 will immediately transition the > >> > > partition > >> > > > > > test-0 to become a follower, > >> > > > > > after the current broker sees the replication of the > >> > > remaining > >> > > > 19 > >> > > > > > partitions, it can send a response indicating that > >> > > > > > it's no longer the leader for the "test-0". > >> > > > > > To see the latency difference between 1.1 and 1.2, let's say > >> > there > >> > > > are > >> > > > > > 24K produce requests ahead of the LeaderAndISR, and there are > 8 > >> io > >> > > > > threads, > >> > > > > > so each io thread will process approximately 3000 produce > >> > requests. > >> > > > Now > >> > > > > > let's investigate the io thread that finally processed the > >> > > > LeaderAndISR. > >> > > > > > For the 3000 produce requests, if we model the time when > their > >> > > > > remaining > >> > > > > > 19 partitions catch up as t0, t1, ...t2999, and the > LeaderAndISR > >> > > > request > >> > > > > is > >> > > > > > processed at time t3000. > >> > > > > > Without this KIP, the 1st produce request would have waited > an > >> > > extra > >> > > > > > t3000 - t0 time in the purgatory, the 2nd an extra time of > >> t3000 - > >> > > t1, > >> > > > > etc. > >> > > > > > Roughly speaking, the latency difference is bigger for the > >> > earlier > >> > > > > > produce requests than for the later ones. For the same reason, > >> the > >> > > more > >> > > > > > ProduceRequests queued > >> > > > > > before the LeaderAndISR, the bigger benefit we get (capped > by > >> the > >> > > > > > produce timeout). > >> > > > > > 2. If the enqueued produce requests have acks=0 or acks=1 > >> > > > > > There will be no latency differences in this case, but > >> > > > > > 2.1 without this KIP, the records of partition test-0 in the > >> > > > > > ProduceRequests ahead of the LeaderAndISR will be appended to > >> the > >> > > local > >> > > > > log, > >> > > > > > and eventually be truncated after processing the > >> > > LeaderAndISR. > >> > > > > > This is what's referred to as > >> > > > > > "some unofficial definition of data loss in terms of > >> > messages > >> > > > > > beyond the high watermark". > >> > > > > > 2.2 with this KIP, we can mitigate the effect since if the > >> > > > LeaderAndISR > >> > > > > > is immediately processed, the response to producers will have > >> > > > > > the NotLeaderForPartition error, causing producers to > >> retry > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > This explanation above is the benefit for reducing the latency > >> of a > >> > > > > broker > >> > > > > > becoming the follower, > >> > > > > > closely related is reducing the latency of a broker becoming > the > >> > > > leader. > >> > > > > > In this case, the benefit is even more obvious, if other > brokers > >> > have > >> > > > > > resigned leadership, and the > >> > > > > > current broker should take leadership. Any delay in processing > >> the > >> > > > > > LeaderAndISR will be perceived > >> > > > > > by clients as unavailability. In extreme cases, this can cause > >> > failed > >> > > > > > produce requests if the retries are > >> > > > > > exhausted. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Another two types of controller requests are UpdateMetadata > and > >> > > > > > StopReplica, which I'll briefly discuss as follows: > >> > > > > > For UpdateMetadata requests, delayed processing means clients > >> > > receiving > >> > > > > > stale metadata, e.g. with the wrong leadership info > >> > > > > > for certain partitions, and the effect is more retries or even > >> > fatal > >> > > > > > failure if the retries are exhausted. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > For StopReplica requests, a long queuing time may degrade the > >> > > > performance > >> > > > > > of topic deletion. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Regarding your last question of the delay for > >> > DescribeLogDirsRequest, > >> > > > you > >> > > > > > are right > >> > > > > > that this KIP cannot help with the latency in getting the log > >> dirs > >> > > > info, > >> > > > > > and it's only relevant > >> > > > > > when controller requests are involved. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Regards, > >> > > > > > Lucas > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Hey Jun, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> Thanks much for the comments. It is good point. So the > feature > >> may > >> > > be > >> > > > > >> useful for JBOD use-case. I have one question below. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> Hey Lucas, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> Do you think this feature is also useful for non-JBOD setup > or > >> it > >> > is > >> > > > > only > >> > > > > >> useful for the JBOD setup? It may be useful to understand > this. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> When the broker is setup using JBOD, in order to move leaders > >> on > >> > the > >> > > > > >> failed > >> > > > > >> disk to other disks, the system operator first needs to get > the > >> > list > >> > > > of > >> > > > > >> partitions on the failed disk. This is currently achieved > using > >> > > > > >> AdminClient.describeLogDirs(), which sends > >> DescribeLogDirsRequest > >> > to > >> > > > the > >> > > > > >> broker. If we only prioritize the controller requests, then > the > >> > > > > >> DescribeLogDirsRequest > >> > > > > >> may still take a long time to be processed by the broker. So > >> the > >> > > > overall > >> > > > > >> time to move leaders away from the failed disk may still be > >> long > >> > > even > >> > > > > with > >> > > > > >> this KIP. What do you think? > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > >> > > > > >> Dong > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Lucas Wang < > >> lucasatu...@gmail.com > >> > > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks for the insightful comment, Jun. > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > @Dong, > >> > > > > >> > Since both of the two comments in your previous email are > >> about > >> > > the > >> > > > > >> > benefits of this KIP and whether it's useful, > >> > > > > >> > in light of Jun's last comment, do you agree that this KIP > >> can > >> > be > >> > > > > >> > beneficial in the case mentioned by Jun? > >> > > > > >> > Please let me know, thanks! > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > Regards, > >> > > > > >> > Lucas > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > Hi, Lucas, Dong, > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > If all disks on a broker are slow, one probably should > just > >> > kill > >> > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > broker. In that case, this KIP may not help. If only one > of > >> > the > >> > > > > disks > >> > > > > >> on > >> > > > > >> > a > >> > > > > >> > > broker is slow, one may want to fail that disk and move > the > >> > > > leaders > >> > > > > on > >> > > > > >> > that > >> > > > > >> > > disk to other brokers. In that case, being able to > process > >> the > >> > > > > >> > LeaderAndIsr > >> > > > > >> > > requests faster will potentially help the producers > recover > >> > > > quicker. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Jun > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Dong Lin < > >> lindon...@gmail.com > >> > > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hey Lucas, > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks for the reply. Some follow up questions below. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Regarding 1, if each ProduceRequest covers 20 > partitions > >> > that > >> > > > are > >> > > > > >> > > randomly > >> > > > > >> > > > distributed across all partitions, then each > >> ProduceRequest > >> > > will > >> > > > > >> likely > >> > > > > >> > > > cover some partitions for which the broker is still > >> leader > >> > > after > >> > > > > it > >> > > > > >> > > quickly > >> > > > > >> > > > processes the > >> > > > > >> > > > LeaderAndIsrRequest. Then broker will still be slow in > >> > > > processing > >> > > > > >> these > >> > > > > >> > > > ProduceRequest and request will still be very high with > >> this > >> > > > KIP. > >> > > > > It > >> > > > > >> > > seems > >> > > > > >> > > > that most ProduceRequest will still timeout after 30 > >> > seconds. > >> > > Is > >> > > > > >> this > >> > > > > >> > > > understanding correct? > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Regarding 2, if most ProduceRequest will still timeout > >> after > >> > > 30 > >> > > > > >> > seconds, > >> > > > > >> > > > then it is less clear how this KIP reduces average > >> produce > >> > > > > latency. > >> > > > > >> Can > >> > > > > >> > > you > >> > > > > >> > > > clarify what metrics can be improved by this KIP? > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Not sure why system operator directly cares number of > >> > > truncated > >> > > > > >> > messages. > >> > > > > >> > > > Do you mean this KIP can improve average throughput or > >> > reduce > >> > > > > >> message > >> > > > > >> > > > duplication? It will be good to understand this. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > >> > > > Dong > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 at 7:12 AM Lucas Wang < > >> > > lucasatu...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi Dong, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for your valuable comments. Please see my > reply > >> > > below. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > 1. The Google doc showed only 1 partition. Now let's > >> > > consider > >> > > > a > >> > > > > >> more > >> > > > > >> > > > common > >> > > > > >> > > > > scenario > >> > > > > >> > > > > where broker0 is the leader of many partitions. And > >> let's > >> > > say > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > >> > some > >> > > > > >> > > > > reason its IO becomes slow. > >> > > > > >> > > > > The number of leader partitions on broker0 is so > large, > >> > say > >> > > > 10K, > >> > > > > >> that > >> > > > > >> > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > cluster is skewed, > >> > > > > >> > > > > and the operator would like to shift the leadership > >> for a > >> > > lot > >> > > > of > >> > > > > >> > > > > partitions, say 9K, to other brokers, > >> > > > > >> > > > > either manually or through some service like cruise > >> > control. > >> > > > > >> > > > > With this KIP, not only will the leadership > transitions > >> > > finish > >> > > > > >> more > >> > > > > >> > > > > quickly, helping the cluster itself becoming more > >> > balanced, > >> > > > > >> > > > > but all existing producers corresponding to the 9K > >> > > partitions > >> > > > > will > >> > > > > >> > get > >> > > > > >> > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > errors relatively quickly > >> > > > > >> > > > > rather than relying on their timeout, thanks to the > >> > batched > >> > > > > async > >> > > > > >> ZK > >> > > > > >> > > > > operations. > >> > > > > >> > > > > To me it's a useful feature to have during such > >> > troublesome > >> > > > > times. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > 2. The experiments in the Google Doc have shown that > >> with > >> > > this > >> > > > > KIP > >> > > > > >> > many > >> > > > > >> > > > > producers > >> > > > > >> > > > > receive an explicit error NotLeaderForPartition, > based > >> on > >> > > > which > >> > > > > >> they > >> > > > > >> > > > retry > >> > > > > >> > > > > immediately. > >> > > > > >> > > > > Therefore the latency (~14 seconds+quick retry) for > >> their > >> > > > single > >> > > > > >> > > message > >> > > > > >> > > > is > >> > > > > >> > > > > much smaller > >> > > > > >> > > > > compared with the case of timing out without the KIP > >> (30 > >> > > > seconds > >> > > > > >> for > >> > > > > >> > > > timing > >> > > > > >> > > > > out + quick retry). > >> > > > > >> > > > > One might argue that reducing the timing out on the > >> > producer > >> > > > > side > >> > > > > >> can > >> > > > > >> > > > > achieve the same result, > >> > > > > >> > > > > yet reducing the timeout has its own drawbacks[1]. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Also *IF* there were a metric to show the number of > >> > > truncated > >> > > > > >> > messages > >> > > > > >> > > on > >> > > > > >> > > > > brokers, > >> > > > > >> > > > > with the experiments done in the Google Doc, it > should > >> be > >> > > easy > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > >> see > >> > > > > >> > > > that > >> > > > > >> > > > > a lot fewer messages need > >> > > > > >> > > > > to be truncated on broker0 since the up-to-date > >> metadata > >> > > > avoids > >> > > > > >> > > appending > >> > > > > >> > > > > of messages > >> > > > > >> > > > > in subsequent PRODUCE requests. If we talk to a > system > >> > > > operator > >> > > > > >> and > >> > > > > >> > ask > >> > > > > >> > > > > whether > >> > > > > >> > > > > they prefer fewer wasteful IOs, I bet most likely the > >> > answer > >> > > > is > >> > > > > >> yes. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > 3. To answer your question, I think it might be > >> helpful to > >> > > > > >> construct > >> > > > > >> > > some > >> > > > > >> > > > > formulas. > >> > > > > >> > > > > To simplify the modeling, I'm going back to the case > >> where > >> > > > there > >> > > > > >> is > >> > > > > >> > > only > >> > > > > >> > > > > ONE partition involved. > >> > > > > >> > > > > Following the experiments in the Google Doc, let's > say > >> > > broker0 > >> > > > > >> > becomes > >> > > > > >> > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > follower at time t0, > >> > > > > >> > > > > and after t0 there were still N produce requests in > its > >> > > > request > >> > > > > >> > queue. > >> > > > > >> > > > > With the up-to-date metadata brought by this KIP, > >> broker0 > >> > > can > >> > > > > >> reply > >> > > > > >> > > with > >> > > > > >> > > > an > >> > > > > >> > > > > NotLeaderForPartition exception, > >> > > > > >> > > > > let's use M1 to denote the average processing time of > >> > > replying > >> > > > > >> with > >> > > > > >> > > such > >> > > > > >> > > > an > >> > > > > >> > > > > error message. > >> > > > > >> > > > > Without this KIP, the broker will need to append > >> messages > >> > to > >> > > > > >> > segments, > >> > > > > >> > > > > which may trigger a flush to disk, > >> > > > > >> > > > > let's use M2 to denote the average processing time > for > >> > such > >> > > > > logic. > >> > > > > >> > > > > Then the average extra latency incurred without this > >> KIP > >> > is > >> > > N > >> > > > * > >> > > > > >> (M2 - > >> > > > > >> > > > M1) / > >> > > > > >> > > > > 2. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > In practice, M2 should always be larger than M1, > which > >> > means > >> > > > as > >> > > > > >> long > >> > > > > >> > > as N > >> > > > > >> > > > > is positive, > >> > > > > >> > > > > we would see improvements on the average latency. > >> > > > > >> > > > > There does not need to be significant backlog of > >> requests > >> > in > >> > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > request > >> > > > > >> > > > > queue, > >> > > > > >> > > > > or severe degradation of disk performance to have the > >> > > > > improvement. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Regards, > >> > > > > >> > > > > Lucas > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > [1] For instance, reducing the timeout on the > producer > >> > side > >> > > > can > >> > > > > >> > trigger > >> > > > > >> > > > > unnecessary duplicate requests > >> > > > > >> > > > > when the corresponding leader broker is overloaded, > >> > > > exacerbating > >> > > > > >> the > >> > > > > >> > > > > situation. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 9:18 PM, Dong Lin < > >> > > lindon...@gmail.com > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hey Lucas, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks much for the detailed documentation of the > >> > > > experiment. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Initially I also think having a separate queue for > >> > > > controller > >> > > > > >> > > requests > >> > > > > >> > > > is > >> > > > > >> > > > > > useful because, as you mentioned in the summary > >> section > >> > of > >> > > > the > >> > > > > >> > Google > >> > > > > >> > > > > doc, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > controller requests are generally more important > than > >> > data > >> > > > > >> requests > >> > > > > >> > > and > >> > > > > >> > > > > we > >> > > > > >> > > > > > probably want controller requests to be processed > >> > sooner. > >> > > > But > >> > > > > >> then > >> > > > > >> > > Eno > >> > > > > >> > > > > has > >> > > > > >> > > > > > two very good questions which I am not sure the > >> Google > >> > doc > >> > > > has > >> > > > > >> > > answered > >> > > > > >> > > > > > explicitly. Could you help with the following > >> questions? > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > 1) It is not very clear what is the actual benefit > of > >> > > > KIP-291 > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > >> > > users. > >> > > > > >> > > > > The > >> > > > > >> > > > > > experiment setup in the Google doc simulates the > >> > scenario > >> > > > that > >> > > > > >> > broker > >> > > > > >> > > > is > >> > > > > >> > > > > > very slow handling ProduceRequest due to e.g. slow > >> disk. > >> > > It > >> > > > > >> > currently > >> > > > > >> > > > > > assumes that there is only 1 partition. But in the > >> > common > >> > > > > >> scenario, > >> > > > > >> > > it > >> > > > > >> > > > is > >> > > > > >> > > > > > probably reasonable to assume that there are many > >> other > >> > > > > >> partitions > >> > > > > >> > > that > >> > > > > >> > > > > are > >> > > > > >> > > > > > also actively produced to and ProduceRequest to > these > >> > > > > partition > >> > > > > >> > also > >> > > > > >> > > > > takes > >> > > > > >> > > > > > e.g. 2 seconds to be processed. So even if broker0 > >> can > >> > > > become > >> > > > > >> > > follower > >> > > > > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > >> > > > > > the partition 0 soon, it probably still needs to > >> process > >> > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > ProduceRequest > >> > > > > >> > > > > > slowly t in the queue because these ProduceRequests > >> > cover > >> > > > > other > >> > > > > >> > > > > partitions. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Thus most ProduceRequest will still timeout after > 30 > >> > > seconds > >> > > > > and > >> > > > > >> > most > >> > > > > >> > > > > > clients will still likely timeout after 30 seconds. > >> Then > >> > > it > >> > > > is > >> > > > > >> not > >> > > > > >> > > > > > obviously what is the benefit to client since > client > >> > will > >> > > > > >> timeout > >> > > > > >> > > after > >> > > > > >> > > > > 30 > >> > > > > >> > > > > > seconds before possibly re-connecting to broker1, > >> with > >> > or > >> > > > > >> without > >> > > > > >> > > > > KIP-291. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Did I miss something here? > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > 2) I guess Eno's is asking for the specific > benefits > >> of > >> > > this > >> > > > > >> KIP to > >> > > > > >> > > > user > >> > > > > >> > > > > or > >> > > > > >> > > > > > system administrator, e.g. whether this KIP > decreases > >> > > > average > >> > > > > >> > > latency, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > 999th percentile latency, probably of exception > >> exposed > >> > to > >> > > > > >> client > >> > > > > >> > > etc. > >> > > > > >> > > > It > >> > > > > >> > > > > > is probably useful to clarify this. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > 3) Does this KIP help improve user experience only > >> when > >> > > > there > >> > > > > is > >> > > > > >> > > issue > >> > > > > >> > > > > with > >> > > > > >> > > > > > broker, e.g. significant backlog in the request > queue > >> > due > >> > > to > >> > > > > >> slow > >> > > > > >> > > disk > >> > > > > >> > > > as > >> > > > > >> > > > > > described in the Google doc? Or is this KIP also > >> useful > >> > > when > >> > > > > >> there > >> > > > > >> > is > >> > > > > >> > > > no > >> > > > > >> > > > > > ongoing issue in the cluster? It might be helpful > to > >> > > clarify > >> > > > > >> this > >> > > > > >> > to > >> > > > > >> > > > > > understand the benefit of this KIP. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks much, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Dong > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Lucas Wang < > >> > > > > >> lucasatu...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Eno, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Sorry for the delay in getting the experiment > >> results. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Here is a link to the positive impact achieved by > >> > > > > implementing > >> > > > > >> > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > proposed > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > change: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > >> > > > > 1ge2jjp5aPTBber6zaIT9AdhW > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > FWUENJ3JO6Zyu4f9tgQ/edit?usp=sharing > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Please take a look when you have time and let me > >> know > >> > > your > >> > > > > >> > > feedback. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Regards, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > Lucas > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Harsha < > >> > > ka...@harsha.io> > >> > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks for the pointer. Will take a look might > >> suit > >> > > our > >> > > > > >> > > > requirements > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > better. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Harsha > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 25th, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Lucas Wang < > >> > > > > >> > > > lucasatu...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Harsha, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If I understand correctly, the replication > >> quota > >> > > > > mechanism > >> > > > > >> > > > proposed > >> > > > > >> > > > > > in > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > KIP-73 can be helpful in that scenario. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Have you tried it out? > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Lucas > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Harsha < > >> > > > > ka...@harsha.io > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi Lucas, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > One more question, any thoughts on making > >> this > >> > > > > >> configurable > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > and also allowing subset of data requests > to > >> be > >> > > > > >> > prioritized. > >> > > > > >> > > > For > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > example > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > ,we notice in our cluster when we take out > a > >> > > broker > >> > > > > and > >> > > > > >> > bring > >> > > > > >> > > > new > >> > > > > >> > > > > > one > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > it > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > will try to become follower and have lot of > >> > fetch > >> > > > > >> requests > >> > > > > >> > to > >> > > > > >> > > > > other > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > leaders > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > in clusters. This will negatively effect > the > >> > > > > >> > > application/client > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > requests. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > We are also exploring the similar solution > to > >> > > > > >> de-prioritize > >> > > > > >> > > if > >> > > > > >> > > > a > >> > > > > >> > > > > > new > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > replica comes in for fetch requests, we are > >> ok > >> > > with > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > replica > >> > > > > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > >> > > > > > be > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > taking time but the leaders should > prioritize > >> > the > >> > > > > client > >> > > > > >> > > > > requests. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Harsha > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 22nd, 2018 at 11:35 AM Lucas > Wang > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eno, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the delayed response. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - I haven't implemented the feature yet, > >> so no > >> > > > > >> > experimental > >> > > > > >> > > > > > results > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > so > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > far. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > And I plan to test in out in the > following > >> > days. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - You are absolutely right that the > >> priority > >> > > queue > >> > > > > >> does > >> > > > > >> > not > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > completely > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > prevent > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > data requests being processed ahead of > >> > > controller > >> > > > > >> > requests. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > That being said, I expect it to greatly > >> > mitigate > >> > > > the > >> > > > > >> > effect > >> > > > > >> > > > of > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > stable > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > metadata. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > In any case, I'll try it out and post the > >> > > results > >> > > > > >> when I > >> > > > > >> > > have > >> > > > > >> > > > > it. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Lucas > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Eno > >> Thereska > >> > < > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > eno.there...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Lucas, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the delay, just had a look at > >> > this. > >> > > A > >> > > > > >> couple > >> > > > > >> > of > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > questions: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - did you notice any positive change > >> after > >> > > > > >> implementing > >> > > > > >> > > > this > >> > > > > >> > > > > > KIP? > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I'm > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > wondering if you have any experimental > >> > results > >> > > > > that > >> > > > > >> > show > >> > > > > >> > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > benefit > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > of > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > two queues. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - priority is usually not sufficient in > >> > > > addressing > >> > > > > >> the > >> > > > > >> > > > > problem > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > KIP > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > identifies. Even with priority queues, > >> you > >> > > will > >> > > > > >> > sometimes > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > (often?) > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > have > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > case that data plane requests will be > >> ahead > >> > of > >> > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > control > >> > > > > >> > > > > > plane > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > requests. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > This happens because the system might > >> have > >> > > > already > >> > > > > >> > > started > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > processing > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > data plane requests before the control > >> plane > >> > > > ones > >> > > > > >> > > arrived. > >> > > > > >> > > > So > >> > > > > >> > > > > > it > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > would > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > be > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > good to know what % of the problem this > >> KIP > >> > > > > >> addresses. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Eno > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Ted > Yu < > >> > > > > >> > > > > yuzhih...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Change looks good. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:42 AM, > Lucas > >> > Wang > >> > > < > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > lucasatu...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ted, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the suggestion. I've > >> updated > >> > > the > >> > > > > KIP. > >> > > > > >> > > Please > >> > > > > >> > > > > > take > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > another > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > look. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lucas > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 6:34 PM, > Ted > >> Yu > >> > < > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > yuzhih...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently in KafkaConfig.scala : > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > val QueuedMaxRequests = 500 > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be good if you can > include > >> > the > >> > > > > >> default > >> > > > > >> > > value > >> > > > > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > this > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > new > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > config > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the KIP. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 4:28 PM, > >> Lucas > >> > > > Wang > >> > > > > < > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > lucasatu...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ted, Dong > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've updated the KIP by adding > a > >> new > >> > > > > config, > >> > > > > >> > > > instead > >> > > > > >> > > > > of > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > reusing > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing one. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please take another look when > you > >> > have > >> > > > > time. > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks a > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > lot! > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lucas > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 2:33 > PM, > >> Ted > >> > > Yu > >> > > > < > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > yuzhih...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bq. that's a waste of > resource > >> if > >> > > > > control > >> > > > > >> > > request > >> > > > > >> > > > > > rate > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > is > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > low > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if control > request > >> > rate > >> > > > can > >> > > > > >> get > >> > > > > >> > to > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > 100,000, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > likely > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > not. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > using the same bound as that > >> for > >> > > data > >> > > > > >> > requests > >> > > > > >> > > > > seems > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > high. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:13 > >> PM, > >> > > > Lucas > >> > > > > >> Wang > >> > > > > >> > < > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > lucasatu...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ted, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for taking a look at > >> this > >> > > > KIP. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's say today the setting > >> of > >> > > > > >> > > > > > "queued.max.requests" > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > in > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > cluster A > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1000, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while the setting in > cluster > >> B > >> > is > >> > > > > >> 100,000. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 100 times difference > >> might > >> > > have > >> > > > > >> > indicated > >> > > > > >> > > > > that > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > machines > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > in > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have larger memory. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By reusing the > >> > > > "queued.max.requests", > >> > > > > >> the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > controlRequestQueue > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > in > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > automatically > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gets a 100x capacity > without > >> > > > > explicitly > >> > > > > >> > > > bothering > >> > > > > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > operators. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand the counter > >> > argument > >> > > > can > >> > > > > be > >> > > > > >> > that > >> > > > > >> > > > > maybe > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > that's > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > a > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > waste > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resource if control request > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rate is low and operators > may > >> > want > >> > > > to > >> > > > > >> fine > >> > > > > >> > > tune > >> > > > > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > capacity > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > of > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > controlRequestQueue. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm ok with either > approach, > >> and > >> > > can > >> > > > > >> change > >> > > > > >> > > it > >> > > > > >> > > > if > >> > > > > >> > > > > > you > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > or > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > anyone > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > else > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feels > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strong about adding the > extra > >> > > > config. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lucas > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at > 3:11 > >> PM, > >> > > Ted > >> > > > > Yu > >> > > > > >> < > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > yuzhih...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lucas: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Under Rejected > >> Alternatives, > >> > #2, > >> > > > can > >> > > > > >> you > >> > > > > >> > > > > > elaborate > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > a > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > bit > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > more > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > on > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate config has > bigger > >> > > impact > >> > > > ? > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at > >> 2:00 > >> > PM, > >> > > > > Dong > >> > > > > >> > Lin < > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > lindon...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Luca, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. > Looks > >> > good > >> > > > > >> overall. > >> > > > > >> > > > Some > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > comments > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > below: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - We usually specify > the > >> > full > >> > > > > mbean > >> > > > > >> for > >> > > > > >> > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > new > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > metrics > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > in > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specify it in the > Public > >> > > > Interface > >> > > > > >> > > section > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > similar > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > to > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-237 > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > < > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/ > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > 237%3A+More+Controller+Health+ > >> > > > > >> Metrics> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ? > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Maybe we could follow > >> the > >> > > same > >> > > > > >> > pattern > >> > > > > >> > > as > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > KIP-153 > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > < > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/ > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > 153%3A+Include+only+client+traffic+in+BytesOutPerSec+ > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > metric>, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where we keep the > >> existing > >> > > > sensor > >> > > > > >> name > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > "BytesInPerSec" > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > and > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > add > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sensor > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> "ReplicationBytesInPerSec", > >> > > > rather > >> > > > > >> than > >> > > > > >> > > > > > replacing > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > sensor > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name " > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BytesInPerSec" with > e.g. > >> > > > > >> > > > > "ClientBytesInPerSec". > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - It seems that the KIP > >> > > changes > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > semantics > >> > > > > >> > > > > > of > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > broker > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > config > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "queued.max.requests" > >> > because > >> > > > the > >> > > > > >> > number > >> > > > > >> > > of > >> > > > > >> > > > > > total > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > requests > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > queued > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > broker will be no > longer > >> > > bounded > >> > > > > by > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > "queued.max.requests". > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > This > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > probably > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > needs to be specified > in > >> the > >> > > > > Public > >> > > > > >> > > > > Interfaces > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > section > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > for > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion. > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dong > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at > >> > 12:45 > >> > > > PM, > >> > > > > >> Lucas > >> > > > > >> > > > Wang > >> > > > > >> > > > > < > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lucasatu...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Kafka experts, > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I created KIP-291 to > >> add a > >> > > > > >> separate > >> > > > > >> > > queue > >> > > > > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > controller > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests: > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/ > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 291% > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > 3A+Have+separate+queues+for+ > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > control+requests+and+data+ > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > requests > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please take a > >> look > >> > > and > >> > > > > >> let me > >> > > > > >> > > > know > >> > > > > >> > > > > > your > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > feedback? > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > -- -Regards, Mayuresh R. Gharat (862) 250-7125
