No, it’s not bad. Kafka is designed to serve data to many consumers at the same time, whether they are independent of each other or in the same consumer group.
I would encourage you to play with different partition counts and use kafka’s performance testing tools (kafka-producer-perf-test.sh and kafka-consumer-perf-test.sh) to test throughput in different scenarios and see the results for yourself. — Peter > On Feb 27, 2020, at 1:28 AM, 张祥 <xiangzhang1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I believe no matter the partition count exceeds the broker count, we can > always have the same number of consumer instances as the partition count. > > So what I want to know is when two partition exists on the same broker, two > consumer instances will be talking to same broker, is that bad ? > > 张祥 <xiangzhang1...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月27日周四 下午2:20写道： > >> Thanks. What influence does it have for consumers and producers when >> partition number is more than broker number, which means at least one >> broker serves two partitions for one topic ? performance wise. >> >> Peter Bukowinski <pmb...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月26日周三 下午11:02写道： >> >>> Disk usage is one reason to expand. Another reason is if you need more >>> ingest or output throughout for your topic data. If your producers aren’t >>> able to send data to kafka fast enough or your consumers are lagging, you >>> might benefit from more brokers and more partitions. >>> >>> -- Peter >>> >>>> On Feb 26, 2020, at 12:56 AM, 张祥 <xiangzhang1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> In documentation, it is described how to expand cluster: >>>> >>> https://kafka.apache.org/20/documentation.html#basic_ops_cluster_expansion >>> . >>>> But I am wondering what the criteria for expand is. I can only think of >>>> disk usage threshold. For example, suppose several disk usage exceed >>> 80%. >>>> Is this correct and is there more ? >>> >>
