Hey Justine. Available could mean that some replicas are down but the leader is available. The suggestion was to try a partition where no replica was down if it's available. Such partitions are safer in general. There could be some downsides too, so worth thinking about the trade-offs.
Ismael On Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 10:24 AM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io> wrote: > Ismael, > > Thanks for the feedback! > > For 1, currently the sticky partitioner favors "available partitions." From > my understanding, these are partitions that are not under-replicated. If > that is not the same, please let me know. > As for 2, I've switched to Optional, and the few tests I've run so far > suggest the performance is the same. > And for 3, I've added a javadoc to my next commit, so that should be up > soon. > > Thanks, > Justine > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:31 AM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > Thanks for the KIP Justine. It looks pretty good. A few comments: > > > > 1. Should we favor partitions that are not under replicated? This is > > something that Netflix did too. > > > > 2. If there's no measurable performance difference, I agree with > Stanislav > > that Optional would be better than Integer. > > > > 3. We should include the javadoc for the newly introduced method that > > specifies it and its parameters. In particular, it would good to specify > if > > it gets called when an explicit partition id has been provided. > > > > Ismael > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, 2:04 PM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > This is the discussion thread for KIP-480: Sticky Partitioner. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Justine Olshan > > > > > >
