Thanks Jun for your quick response. It looks like I forgot to click the "Update" button, :) It's updated now.
Regarding the idle ratio metrics for the additional threads, I discussed with Joel, and think they are not as useful, and I added our reasoning in the last paragraph of the "How are controller requests handled over the dedicated connections?" section. On the other hand, we don't strongly oppose adding them if you think they are necessary. Thanks, Lucas On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:12 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi, Lucas, > > Thanks for the reply. Have you actually updated the KIP? The wiki says that > it's last updated on Aug. 22. and some of the changes that you mentioned > (#1 and #3) are not there. > > Also, regarding Joel's comment on network/request idle ratio metrics, could > you comment on whether they include the new controller listener? If not, do > we need additional metrics to measure the utilization of the io thread for > the control plane? > > Jun > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Lucas Wang <lucasatu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for the comments, Jun. > > > > 1. I think the answer should be no, since the " > inter.broker.listener.name" > > are also used > > for replication traffic, and merging these two types of request to the > > single threaded tunnel > > would defeat the purpose of this KIP and also hurt replication > throughput. > > So I think that means > > we should validate to make sure when the new config is set, it's > different > > from "inter.broker.listener.name" > > or "security.inter.broker.protocol", whichever is set. > > > > 2. Normally all broker configs in a given cluster are changed at the same > > time. If there is a typo in the > > controller.listener.name and it's not available in the endpoints list, > we > > could catch it, give an error > > and block restart of the first broker in the cluster. With that, we could > > keep the current behavior > > in the KIP write up that falls back to "inter.broker.listener.nam" when > the > > "controller.listener.name" > > is not found during the migration phase of this KIP. Thoughts? > > > > 3. That makes sense, and I've changed it. > > > > Thanks, > > Lucas > > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 3:46 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > Hi, Lucas, > > > > > > Sorry for the delay. The new proposal looks good to me overall. A few > > minor > > > comments below. > > > > > > 1. It's possible that listener.name.for.controller is set, but set to > the > > > same value as inter.broker.listener.name. In that case, should we > have a > > > single network thread and the request handling thread for that > listener? > > > > > > 2. Currently, the controller always picks the listener specified by > > > inter.broker.listener.name even if the listener name is not present in > > the > > > receiving broker. This KIP proposes a slightly different approach for > > > picking listener.name.for.controller only when the receiving end has > the > > > listener and switches listener.name.for.controller otherwise. There are > > > some tradeoffs between the two approaches. To change the inter broker > > > listener, the former requires 2 steps: (1) adding the new listener to > > > listener list in every broker and (2) changing > > > listener.name.for.controller. > > > The latter can do both changes in 1 step. On the hand, if > > > listener.name.for.controller > > > is mis-configured, the former will report an error and the latter will > > hide > > > it (so the user may not know the misconfiguration). It seems that we > > should > > > pick one approach to handle both listener.name.for.controller and > > > inter.broker.listener.name consistently. To me, the former seems > > slightly > > > better. > > > > > > 3. To be consistent with the existing naming, should > > > listener.name.for.controller > > > be controller.listener.name? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Lucas Wang <lucasatu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Jun and Joel, > > > > > > > > The KIP writeup has changed by quite a bit since your +1. > > > > Can you please take another review? Thanks a lot for your time! > > > > > > > > Lucas > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 on the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > (I'm not sure we actually necessary to introduce the condition > > > variables > > > > > for the concern that Jun raised, but it's an implementation detail > > that > > > > we > > > > > can defer to a discussion in the PR.) > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Lucas Wang < > lucasatu...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree by using the conditional variables, there is no need to > add > > > > such > > > > > a > > > > > > new config. > > > > > > Also thanks for approving this KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lucas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
