ink the follow-up work is just refinement to make the new config
> easy to
> > > use. We should be good
> > > to vote IMO.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Boyang
> > >
> > > From: Stanislav Kozlovski
> > >
ty buying in the motivation of this KIP, so I
> > think the follow-up work is just refinement to make the new config easy to
> > use. We should be good
> > to vote IMO.
> >
> > Best,
> > Boyang
> > ____________
> > From: Stanislav K
ld be good
> to vote IMO.
>
> Best,
> Boyang
>
> From: Stanislav Kozlovski
> Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 4:21 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size to cap member
> metadata growth
>
> Hey
onfig easy to use. We
should be good
to vote IMO.
Best,
Boyang
From: Stanislav Kozlovski
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 4:21 PM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size to cap member metadata
growth
Hey there,
Per Gwen'
2018 at 12:58 AM Boyang Chen
> wrote:
> >
> > > Yep Stanislav, that's what I'm proposing, and your explanation makes
> sense.
> > >
> > > Boyang
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Stanislav Kozlovski
>
e whole cluster.
What do you think?
Best,
Boyang
From: Gwen Shapira
Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 2:59 AM
To: dev
Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size to cap member metadata
growth
Sorry for joining the fun late, but I think the problem we are so
Yep Stanislav, that's what I'm proposing, and your explanation makes sense.
> >
> > Boyang
> >
> >
> > From: Stanislav Kozlovski
> > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 7:59 PM
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > Subject: Re:
> From: Stanislav Kozlovski
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 7:59 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size to cap member
> metadata growth
>
> Hey there everybody, let's work on wrapping this discussion up.
Yep Stanislav, that's what I'm proposing, and your explanation makes sense.
Boyang
From: Stanislav Kozlovski
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 7:59 PM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size to cap member metada
tion is whether
>> you feel
>> we should enforce group size cap statically or on runtime?
>>
>> Boyang
>> ________
>> From: Jason Gustafson
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 3:24 AM
>> To: dev
>> Subject: Re: [Dis
ly or on runtime?
>
> Boyang
>
> From: Jason Gustafson
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 3:24 AM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size to cap member
> metadata growth
>
> Hey Stanislav,
>
> Just to c
v Kozlovski
> Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 8:51 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size to cap member
> metadata growth
>
> Hi,
>
> We discussed this offline with Boyang and figured that it's best to not
> wait on the Coo
2018 8:51 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size to cap member
> metadata growth
>
> Hi,
>
> We discussed this offline with Boyang and figured that it's best to not
> wait on the Cooperative Rebalancing proposal. Our thinking is t
Yep, LGTM on my side. Thanks Stanislav!
From: Stanislav Kozlovski
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 8:51 PM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size to cap member metadata
growth
Hi,
We discussed this offline with Boyang and
rt+and+Policies
> >
> proposal.
>
> Let me know if this makes sense.
>
> Best,
> Boyang
>
> From: Stanislav Kozlovski
> Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 5:52 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size t
3A+Support+and+Policies>
proposal.
Let me know if this makes sense.
Best,
Boyang
From: Stanislav Kozlovski
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 5:52 PM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size to cap member metadata
growt
ould kill two birds with one
> stone in a generic way. What do you think?
>
> Boyang
> ________________
> From: Stanislav Kozlovski
> Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 8:35 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size to
because we could kill two birds with one stone
in a generic way. What do you think?
Boyang
From: Stanislav Kozlovski
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 8:35 PM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size to cap member metadata
growth
; It
> > > > limits the control clients have on the cluster and helps Kafka
> become a
> > > > more self-serving system. Admin/Ops teams can better control the
> impact
> > > > application developers can have on a Kafka cluster with thi
ybody,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks for the introduction Boyang. I appreciate the effort
> you
> > > are
> > > > > > >> putting into improving consumer behavior in Kafka.
> > > > > >
lity impact here?
> What
> > > > will happen to groups that are already larger than the max size?
> Also,
> > > just
> > > > to be clear, the resource we are trying to conserve here is what?
> > Memory?
> > > >
> > > > -Jason
> &
t; > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 2:44 AM Boyang Chen
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Stanislav for the update! One suggestion I have is that it
> would
> > > be
> > > > helpful to put your
> > > >
> > > > reasoning on de
ue. For example, in
> certain
> > > use cases at Pinterest we are very likely
> > >
> > > to have more consumers than 250 when we configure 8 stream instances
> with
> > > 32 threads.
> > >
> > >
> > > For the effectiveness of this KIP,
on the default setting and ideally reach a consensus.
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Boyang
> >
> > ____________
> > From: Stanislav Kozlovski
> > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 6:14 PM
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> >
av Kozlovski
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 6:14 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size to cap member
> metadata growth
>
> Hey everybody,
>
> It's been a week since this KIP and not much discussion has been made.
> I
: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.size to cap member metadata
growth
Hey everybody,
It's been a week since this KIP and not much discussion has been made.
I assume that this is a straight forward change and I will open a voting
thread in the next couple of days if nobody has anythi
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!
>>>
>>&
this happen!
>>
>>
>> Boyang
>>
>> ____
>> From: Matt Farmer
>> 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
>> metada
/KAFKA-7610>.
>
>
> Thank you Stanislav for making this happen!
>
>
> Boyang
>
>
> From: Matt Farmer
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:24 AM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-389: Enforce group.max.s
making this happen!
Boyang
From: Matt Farmer
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
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
Hey folks,
I would like to start a discussion on KIP-389:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-389%3A+Enforce+group.max.size+to+cap+member+metadata+growth
This is a pretty simple change to cap the consumer group size for broker
stability. Give me your valuable feedback when y
32 matches
Mail list logo
