This appears to be a coding accident, I accidentally had started two
consumers for each instance of the app I was testing. Removing that seems
to have fixed what I was seeing.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Jason Gustafson <[email protected]>
wrote:

> It shouldn't be possible to have conflicting assignments. It kind of sounds
> like your consumers aren't all staying in the group. Maybe you could share
> a code snippet with what you're trying to do?
>
> -Jason
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:47 AM, craig w <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I implemented the ConsumerRebalanceListener just to log the
> TopicPartitions
> > revoked and assigned. In a test, I had 5 consumers subscribed to one
> topic
> > (which had 15 partitions) all with the same group id. Upon startup they
> all
> > were assigned 3 different partitions. I pushed in 15 messages (one per
> > partition) and each consumer received 3 messages. All 15 messages were
> > processed once.
> >
> > I then pushed 90 messages (to ensure each consumer would be busy for a
> > bit), then I started a 6th consumer. I watched the logs of the 5 original
> > consumers and saw their TopicPartitions were being revoked/assigned a few
> > times. When the dust settled I saw duplicates subscriptions, at least
> > according to the ConsumerRebalanceListener.
> >
> > One consumer was assigned all 15 partitions. While other consumers had
> > anywhere from 2 - 4 partitions assigned. This means, multiple consumers
> in
> > the same group are consuming the same partition. Am I doing something
> wrong
> > or perhaps misunderstanding what's going on with the
> > ConsumberRebalanceListener? I didn't believe it was possible for
> consumers
> > in the same group subscribed to the same topic to be consuming the same
> > partition.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:12 PM, craig w <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I think I'll need to do that.
> > >
> > > My current setup is where I have 200 partitions for a topic with 200
> > > consumers, all part of the same group. Each consumer does a "poll".
> Upon
> > > receiving messages it will pause the topic/paritions it received, while
> > the
> > > messages are processed, as each message is processed the offset is
> > > committed. When all messages are processed, the topic/partition is
> > resumed
> > > and poll is called again. However, during this it's possible that the
> > > consumers get restarted (as part of an upgrade, etc) or a consumer dies
> > and
> > > a new one starts up.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Jason Gustafson <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> That is correct. The typical way to handle this (if you need to) is to
> > >> repause the partitions in the ConsumerRebalanceListener
> > >> onPartitionsAssigned() hook.
> > >>
> > >> -Jason
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:03 AM, craig w <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > so if I had a bunch of consumers coming online while some consumers
> > had
> > >> > partitions paused, those consumers that were paused would become
> > >> unpaused?
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Jason Gustafson <
> [email protected]>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Nope. Pausing a partition just stops the consumer from sending any
> > >> more
> > >> > > fetches for it. It will not trigger a partition reassignment. One
> > >> thing
> > >> > to
> > >> > > be wary of, however, is that the partition will automatically be
> > >> unpaused
> > >> > > after the next normal rebalance.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -Jason
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 7:19 AM, craig w <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Using kafka 0.9.0.0, if there are multiple consumers in a group
> > and
> > >> one
> > >> > > > consumer pauses the topic+partition it's consuming, does that
> > >> > allow/cause
> > >> > > > other consumers in the group to pick it up?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> >
> > >> > https://github.com/mindscratch
> > >> > https://www.google.com/+CraigWickesser
> > >> > https://twitter.com/mind_scratch
> > >> > https://twitter.com/craig_links
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > https://github.com/mindscratch
> > > https://www.google.com/+CraigWickesser
> > > https://twitter.com/mind_scratch
> > > https://twitter.com/craig_links
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > https://github.com/mindscratch
> > https://www.google.com/+CraigWickesser
> > https://twitter.com/mind_scratch
> > https://twitter.com/craig_links
> >
>



-- 

https://github.com/mindscratch
https://www.google.com/+CraigWickesser
https://twitter.com/mind_scratch
https://twitter.com/craig_links

Reply via email to