Hi,
In the BrokerHeartbeat request and response, what is the reason to have
LeaseStartTimeMs and LeaseEndTimeMs respectively? There are two points I
was thinking of
1. The time used to track lease expiry will be monotonic clock on the
active controller. So it won't be useful to use that value on the broker.
(It's the monotonic clock of the active controller, and I assume it
won't be tracked on the follower controllers unless we have some
notion of 'cluster
clock' <https://ongardie.net/blog/logcabin-2015-02-27/> as used in
LogCabin.)
2. The broker, while registering, will like to get the lease as soon as
possible, so what's the purpose of this time in the request?
Thanks,
Unmesh
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:51 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Hi, Colin,
>
> Thanks for the KIP. A few comments below.
>
> 10. Some of the choices in this KIP are not consistent with KIP-595. It
> would be useful to make consistent choices between the two KIPs.
> 10.1 KIP-595 doesn't use a separate Heartbeat request and heartbeat is
> piggybacked through the Fetch request.
> 10.2 The discussion in KIP-595 still assumes a separate controlled shutdown
> request instead of heartbeat.
> 10.3 My understanding is that the controller is just the leader in the Raft
> quorum. If so, do we need process.roles and controller.connect in this KIP
> given quorum.voters in KIP-595?
>
> 11. Fencing: It would be useful to clarify whether the fencing is 1-way or
> 2-way. In ZK, the fencing is 1-way. ZK server determines if a ZK session is
> expired or not. An expired ZK client doesn't know it's fenced until it can
> connect to ZK server. It seems in this KIP, the proposal is for the fencing
> to work in both ways, i.e., the controller can fence a broker and a broker
> can fence itself based on heartbeat independently. There are some tradeoffs
> between these two approaches. It would be useful to document the benefits
> and the limitations of the proposed approach. For example, I wonder what
> happens if the controller and the broker make inconsistent fencing
> decisions in the new approach.
>
> 12. BrokerRecord:
> 12.1 Currently, BrokerEpoch is the ZK session id. How is BrokerEpoch
> generated without ZK?
> 12.2 KIP-584 is in progress. So, we need to include the features field.
>
> 13. PartitionRecord/IsrChange. IsrChange seems to be representing an
> incremental change to ISR in PartitionRecord. For consistency, should we
> have a separate record for representing incremental change to replicas?
> Currently RemovingReplicas/AddingReplicas are included with many other
> fields in PartitionRecord?
>
> 14. "When the active controller decides that a standby controller should
> start a snapshot, it will communicate that information in its response to
> the periodic heartbeat sent by that node. When the active controller
> decides that it itself should create a snapshot, it will first try to give
> up the leadership of the Raft quorum in order to avoid unnecessary delays
> while writing the snapshot." Is it truly necessary to only do snapshotting
> in the follower? It seems it's simpler to just let every replica do
> snapshotting in a background thread.
>
> 15. Currently, we store SCRAM hashes and delegation tokens in ZooKeeper.
> Should we add records to account for those?
>
> 16. The description of leaderEpoch says "An epoch that gets incremented
> each time we change the ISR." Currently, we only increment leaderEpoch when
> the leader changes.
>
> 17. Metrics
> 17.1 "kafka.controller:type=KafkaController,name=MetadataSnapshotLag The
> offset delta between the latest stable offset of the metadata topic and the
> offset of the last snapshot (or 0 if there are no snapshots)". 0 could be a
> valid lag. So using that to represent no snapshots can cause confusion.
> 17.2 kafka.controller:type=KafkaController,name=ControllerRequestsRate: We
> already have a rateAndTIme metric per ControllerState. Do we need this new
> metric?
>
> 18. Do we need a separate DeletePartition record? This could be useful to
> represent the successful deletion of a single partition.
>
> 19. Do we need brokerEpoch in DeleteBroker?
>
> 20. controller.id: I had the same feeling as Jason. Requiring the user to
> configure a separate controller id for each broker seems to add more
> complexity. So, we need a good reason to do that. So far, it seems that's
> just for having a unique id when creating the NetworkClient for the
> controller. That's internal and there could be other ways to achieve this.
> Thanks,
>
> Jun
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 11:02 PM Boyang Chen <reluctanthero...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hey Colin,
> >
> > some more questions I have about the proposal:
> >
> > 1. We mentioned in the networking section that "The only time when
> clients
> > should contact a controller node directly is when they are debugging
> system
> > issues". But later we didn't talk about how to enable this debug mode,
> > could you consider getting a section about that?
> >
> > 2. “When the active controller decides that a standby controller should
> > start a snapshot, it will communicate that information in its response to
> > the periodic heartbeat sent by that node.“ In the KIP-595, we provide an
> > RPC called `EndQuorumEpoch` which would transfer the leadership role to a
> > dedicated successor, do you think we could reuse that method instead of
> > piggy-backing on the heartbeat RPC?
> >
> > 3. The `DeleteBroker` record is listed but not mentioned in details for
> the
> > KIP. Are we going to support removing a broker in runtime, or this record
> > is just for the sake of removing an obsolete broker due to heartbeat
> > failure?
> >
> > 4. In the rejected alternatives, we mentioned we don't want to combine
> > heartbeats and fetch and listed out the reason was due to extra
> complexity.
> > However, we should also mention some cons caused by this model, for
> example
> > we are doing 2X round trips to maintain a liveness, where as a regular
> > follower it should always send out fetch, for sure. If we are combining
> the
> > two, what are the heartbeat request fields we need to populate in the
> Fetch
> > protocol to make it work? Could we piggy-back on the UpdateMetadata RPC
> to
> > propagate the broker state change for listeners separately to the
> > controller? I'm not buying either approach here, just hope we could list
> > out more reasoning for separating the heartbeat RPC from Fetch, pros and
> > cons.
> >
> > Boyang
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:30 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, at 11:08, Boyang Chen wrote:
> > > > Hey Colin, some quick questions,
> > > >
> > > > 1. I looked around and didn't find a config for broker heartbeat
> > > interval,
> > > > are we piggy-back on some existing configs?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Good point. I meant to add this, but I forgot. I added
> > > registration.heartbeat.interval.ms in the table.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2. We only mentioned that the lease time is 10X of the heartbeat
> > > interval,
> > > > could we also include why we chose this value?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I will add registration.lease.timeout.ms so that this can be set
> > > separately from registration.heartbeat.interval.ms. The choice of
> value
> > > is a balance between not timing out brokers too soon, and not keeping
> > > unavailable brokers around too long.
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Colin
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:09 AM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Colin,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the proposal. A few initial comments comments/questions
> > > below:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. I don't follow why we need a separate configuration for
> > > > > `controller.listeners`. The current listener configuration already
> > > allows
> > > > > users to specify multiple listeners, which allows them to define
> > > internal
> > > > > endpoints that are not exposed to clients. Can you explain what the
> > new
> > > > > configuration gives us that we don't already have?
> > > > > 2. What is the advantage of creating a separate `controller.id`
> > > instead of
> > > > > just using `broker.id`?
> > > > > 3. It sounds like you are imagining a stop-the-world approach to
> > > > > snapshotting, which is why we need the controller micromanaging
> > > snapshots
> > > > > on all followers. Alternatives include fuzzy snapshots which can be
> > > done
> > > > > concurrently. If this has been rejected, can you add some detail
> > about
> > > why?
> > > > > 4. More of a nit, but should `DeleteBrokerRecord` be
> > > > > `ShutdownBrokerRecord`? The broker is just getting removed from
> ISRs,
> > > but
> > > > > it would still be present in the replica set (I assume).
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Jason
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 12:24 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Unmesh,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's an interesting idea, but I think it would be best to
> strive
> > > for
> > > > > > single metadata events that are complete in themselves, rather
> than
> > > > > trying
> > > > > > to do something transactional or EOS-like. For example, we could
> > > have a
> > > > > > create event that contains all the partitions to be created.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > best,
> > > > > > Colin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020, at 04:12, Unmesh Joshi wrote:
> > > > > > > I was thinking that we might need something like
> multi-operation
> > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-965> record
> in
> > > > > > zookeeper
> > > > > > > to atomically create topic and partition records when this
> multi
> > > record
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > committed. This way metadata will have both the TopicRecord
> and
> > > > > > > PartitionRecord together always, and in no situation we can
> have
> > > > > > > TopicRecord without PartitionRecord. Not sure if there are
> other
> > > > > > situations
> > > > > > > where multi-operation is needed.
> > > > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-965>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Unmesh
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 11:32 AM Colin McCabe <
> > cmcc...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Unmesh,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, once the last stable offset advanced, we would consider
> > the
> > > > > topic
> > > > > > > > creation to be done, and then we could return success to the
> > > client.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > best,
> > > > > > > > Colin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020, at 19:44, Unmesh Joshi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > It still needs HighWaterMark / LastStableOffset to be
> > advanced
> > > by
> > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > records? Something like following?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > | |
> > > > > > > > > <------------------ |----------------| HighWaterMark
> > > > > > > > > Response |PartitionRecord |
> > > > > > > > > | |
> > > > > > > > > -----------------|
> > > > > > > > > | TopicRecord |
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > | |
> > > > > > > > > -------------------> ------------------ Previous
> > > HighWaterMark
> > > > > > > > > CreateTopic | |
> > > > > > > > > | |
> > > > > > > > > | |
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 1:30 AM Colin McCabe <
> > > cmcc...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020, at 04:37, Unmesh Joshi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I see that, when a new topic is created, two metadata
> > > records,
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > TopicRecord (just the name and id of the topic) and a
> > > > > > PartitionRecord
> > > > > > > > > > (more
> > > > > > > > > > > like LeaderAndIsr, with leader id and replica ids for
> the
> > > > > > partition)
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > created.
> > > > > > > > > > > While creating the topic, log entries for both the
> > records
> > > need
> > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > > committed in RAFT core. Will it need something like a
> > > > > > > > > > MultiOperationRecord
> > > > > > > > > > > in zookeeper. Then, we can have a single log entry with
> > > both
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > > > and the create topic request can be fulfilled
> atomically
> > > when
> > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > records are committed?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Unmesh,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Since the active controller is the only node writing to
> the
> > > log,
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > no need for any kind of synchronization or access control
> > at
> > > the
> > > > > > log
> > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > best,
> > > > > > > > > > Colin
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Unmesh
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 6:57 AM Ron Dagostino <
> > > > > rndg...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > HI Colin. Thanks for the KIP. Here is some feedback
> > and
> > > > > > various
> > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "*Controller processes will listen on a separate port
> > > from
> > > > > > brokers.
> > > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > will be true even when the broker and controller are
> > > > > > co-located in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > JVM*". I assume it is possible that the port numbers
> > > could be
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > using separate JVMs (i.e. broker uses port 9192 and
> > > > > controller
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > port 9192). I think it would be clearer to state
> this
> > > along
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > lines: "Controller
> > > > > > > > > > > > nodes will listen on a port, and the controller port
> > must
> > > > > > differ
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > port that a broker in the same JVM is listening on.
> In
> > > other
> > > > > > > > words, a
> > > > > > > > > > > > controller and a broker node, when in the same JVM,
> do
> > > not
> > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > ports"
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think the sentence "*In the realm of ACLs, this
> > > translates
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > controllers
> > > > > > > > > > > > requiring CLUSTERACTION on CLUSTER for all
> operations*"
> > > is
> > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > > feels to me that you can just delete it. Am I
> missing
> > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > here?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The KIP states "*The metadata will be stored in
> memory
> > > on all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > active
> > > > > > > > > > > > controllers.*" Can there be multiple active
> > controllers?
> > > > > > Should
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > instead read "The metadata will be stored in memory
> on
> > > all
> > > > > > > > potential
> > > > > > > > > > > > controllers." (or something like that)?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-595 states "*we have assumed the name
> > > __cluster_metadata
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > topic, but this is not a formal part of this
> > proposal*".
> > > > > This
> > > > > > > > KIP-631
> > > > > > > > > > > > states "*Metadata changes need to be persisted to the
> > > > > > __metadata
> > > > > > > > log
> > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > we propagate them to the other nodes in the cluster.
> > > This
> > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > for the metadata log's last stable offset to advance
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > change.*" Are we here formally defining "__metadata"
> > as
> > > the
> > > > > > topic
> > > > > > > > > > name,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and should these sentences refer to "__metadata
> topic"
> > > rather
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > "__metadata log"? What are the "other nodes in the
> > > cluster"
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > referred to? These are not controller nodes but
> > brokers,
> > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > > > > then should we say "before we propagate them to the
> > > brokers"?
> > > > > > > > > > Technically
> > > > > > > > > > > > we have a controller cluster and a broker cluster --
> > two
> > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > clusters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > correct? (Even though we could potentially share
> JVMs
> > > and
> > > > > > > > therefore
> > > > > > > > > > > > require no additional processes.). If the statement
> is
> > > > > > referring to
> > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > in both clusters then maybe we should state "before
> we
> > > > > > propagate
> > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the other nodes in the controller cluster or to
> > brokers."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "*The controller may have several of these
> uncommitted
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > flight at
> > > > > > > > > > > > any given time. In essence, the controller's
> in-memory
> > > state
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > always a
> > > > > > > > > > > > little bit in the future compared to the current
> state.
> > > This
> > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > controller to continue doing things while it waits
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > to be committed to the Raft log.*" Should the three
> > > > > references
> > > > > > > > above
> > > > > > > > > > be to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the active controller rather than just the
> controller?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "*Therefore, the controller must not make this future
> > > state
> > > > > > > > "visible"
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the rest of the cluster until it has been made
> > > persistent –
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > is,
> > > > > > > > > > until
> > > > > > > > > > > > it becomes current state*". Again I wonder if this
> > should
> > > > > > refer to
> > > > > > > > > > "active"
> > > > > > > > > > > > controller, and indicate "anyone else" as opposed to
> > "the
> > > > > rest
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > cluster" since we are talking about 2 clusters here?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "*When the active controller decides that it itself
> > > should
> > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > snapshot, it will first try to give up the leadership
> > of
> > > the
> > > > > > Raft
> > > > > > > > > > quorum.*"
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why? Is it necessary to state this? It seems like
> it
> > > might
> > > > > > be an
> > > > > > > > > > > > implementation detail rather than a necessary
> > > > > > > > constraint/requirement
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > we declare publicly and would have to abide by.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "*It will reject brokers whose metadata is too
> stale*".
> > > Why?
> > > > > > An
> > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > might be helpful here.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "*it may lose subsequent conflicts if its broker
> epoch
> > is
> > > > > > stale*"
> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > the first time a "broker epoch" is mentioned. I am
> > > assuming
> > > > > > it is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > controller epoch communicated to it (if any). It
> would
> > > be
> > > > > > good to
> > > > > > > > > > > > introduce it/explicitly state what it is before
> > > referring to
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ron
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:48 PM Colin McCabe <
> > > > > > cmcc...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I posted a KIP about how the quorum-based
> controller
> > > > > > envisioned
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-500
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will work. Please take a look here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/4RV4CQ
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Colin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
