Thanks Matt for the suggestion! I'm still open to any suggestion to change the default value. Meanwhile I just want to point out that this value is a just last line of defense, not a real scenario we would expect.
In the meanwhile, I discussed with Stanislav and he would be driving the 389 effort from now on. Stanislav proposed the idea in the first place and had already come up a draft design, while I will keep focusing on KIP-345 effort to ensure solving the edge case described in the JIRA<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7610>. Thank you Stanislav for making this happen! Boyang ________________________________ From: Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:24 AM To: dev@kafka.apache.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size to cap member metadata growth Thanks for the KIP. Will this cap be a global cap across the entire cluster or per broker? Either way the default value seems a bit high to me, but that could just be from my own usage patterns. I’d have probably started with 500 or 1k but could be easily convinced that’s wrong. Thanks, Matt On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 8:51 PM Boyang Chen <bche...@outlook.com> wrote: > Hey folks, > > > I would like to start a discussion on KIP-389: > > > https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwiki.apache.org%2Fconfluence%2Fdisplay%2FKAFKA%2FKIP-389%253A%2BEnforce%2Bgroup.max.size%2Bto%2Bcap%2Bmember%2Bmetadata%2Bgrowth&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb0ee4fe97ad44cc046eb08d64e8f5d90%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636782774981237462&sdata=Q2T7hIoVq8GiPVhr0HIxVkGNChkiz1Pvk2zyLD5gCu8%3D&reserved=0 > > > This is a pretty simple change to cap the consumer group size for broker > stability. Give me your valuable feedback when you got time. > > > Thank you! >
