[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7129?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16531100#comment-16531100 ]
Damien Gasparina edited comment on KAFKA-7129 at 7/3/18 9:34 AM: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Isn't that more a JVM / Library issue more than Kafka issue? e.g. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6515172. I guess container/cgroups will create more issue with memory as, if I remember correctly, there is no safe way to get the limitation (https://fabiokung.com/2014/03/13/memory-inside-linux-containers/) was (Author: dabz): Isn't that more a JVM / Library issue more than Kafka issue? e.g. https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6515172. I guess container/cgroups will create more issue with memory as, if I remember, there is no safe way to get the limitation (https://fabiokung.com/2014/03/13/memory-inside-linux-containers/) > Dynamic default value for number of thread configuration > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: KAFKA-7129 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7129 > Project: Kafka > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: core > Reporter: Damien Gasparina > Priority: Minor > > There are properties in the broker to change the number of thread of a > component (e.g. _num.replica.fetchers_ or _num.network.threads_). After > discussing with [~astubbs], it seems that the default values are optimized > for an 8 CPU machine and might not be optimized for larger machine (e.g. 48 > cores). > For those larger machine, an admin need to tune them to be able to use all > resources of the host. > Having dynamic default value (e.g. _num.replica.fetchers_ = _ceil(number of > core / 8)_, etc...) instead of static (e.g. _num.replica.fetchers =1_) could > be a more efficient strategy to have default values optimized for different > kind of deployment. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)