Hi Luke, Thanks for the KIP, +1 (binding).
Kind regards, Tom On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 13:16, Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Bump this thread to see if there are other comments to this KIP. > So far, I have one +1 vote (binding), and need more votes. > > Thank you. > Luke > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:33 AM Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Bump this thread to see if there are other comments to this KIP. > > > > Thank you. > > Luke > > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 1:27 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Thanks for the explanation, Luke. That makes sense. > >> > >> best, > >> Colin > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021, at 13:31, Guozhang Wang wrote: > >> > Thanks Luke, in that case I'm +1 on this KIP. > >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 1:46 AM Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Guozhang, > >> >> > >> >> Thanks for your comment. > >> >> > >> >> > we need to make sure the old-versioned leader would be able to > >> ignore the > >> >> new > >> >> field during an upgrade e.g. without crashing. > >> >> > >> >> Yes, I understand. I'll be careful to make sure it won't crash the > old > >> >> versioned leader. > >> >> But basically, it won't, because we appended the new field into the > >> last of > >> >> the ConsumerProtocolSubscription, which means, when read/deserialize > >> the > >> >> Subscription metadata, the old versioned leader will just read the > head > >> >> part of the data. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks for the reminder! > >> >> > >> >> Luke > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 4:00 AM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Hi Luke, > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks for the KIP. > >> >> > > >> >> > One thing I'd like to double check is that, since the > >> >> > ConsumerProtocolSubscription is not auto generated from the json > >> file, we > >> >> > need to make sure the old-versioned leader would be able to ignore > >> the > >> >> new > >> >> > field during an upgrade e.g. without crashing. Other than that, the > >> KIP > >> >> > lgtm. > >> >> > > >> >> > Guozhang > >> >> > > >> >> > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 6:16 PM Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > Hi Colin, > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I'm not quite sure if I understand your thoughts correctly. > >> >> > > If I was wrong, please let me know. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Also, I'm not quite sure how I could lock this feature to a new > IBP > >> >> > > version. > >> >> > > I saw "KIP-584: Versioning scheme for features" is still under > >> >> > development. > >> >> > > Not sure if I need to lock the IBP version, how should I do? > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Thank you. > >> >> > > Luke > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 9:41 PM Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Hi Colin, > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Thanks for your comments. I've updated the KIP to mention about > >> the > >> >> KIP > >> >> > > > won't affect current broker side behavior. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > One scenario that we need to consider is what happens during > a > >> >> > rolling > >> >> > > > upgrade. If the coordinator moves back and forth between > brokers > >> with > >> >> > > > different IBPs, it seems that the same epoch numbers could be > >> reused > >> >> > for > >> >> > > a > >> >> > > > group, if things are done in the obvious manner (old IBP = > don't > >> read > >> >> > or > >> >> > > > write epoch, new IBP = do) > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > I think this KIP doesn't care about the group epoch number at > >> all. > >> >> The > >> >> > > > subscription metadata is passed from each member to group > >> >> coordinator, > >> >> > > and > >> >> > > > then the group coordinator pass all of them back to the > consumer > >> >> lead. > >> >> > So > >> >> > > > even if the epoch number is reused in a group, it should be > >> fine. On > >> >> > the > >> >> > > > other hand, the group coordinator will have no idea if the join > >> group > >> >> > > > request sent from consumer containing the new subscription > >> >> "generation" > >> >> > > > field or not, because group coordinator won't deserialize the > >> >> metadata. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > I've added also added them into the KIP. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Thank you. > >> >> > > > Luke > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:39 AM Colin McCabe < > cmcc...@apache.org > >> > > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > >> Hi Luke, > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> Thanks for the explanation. > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> I don't see any description of how the broker decides to use > >> the new > >> >> > > >> version of ConsumerProtocolSubscription or not. This probably > >> needs > >> >> to > >> >> > > be > >> >> > > >> locked to a new IBP version. > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> One scenario that we need to consider is what happens during a > >> >> rolling > >> >> > > >> upgrade. If the coordinator moves back and forth between > brokers > >> >> with > >> >> > > >> different IBPs, it seems that the same epoch numbers could be > >> reused > >> >> > > for a > >> >> > > >> group, if things are done in the obvious manner (old IBP = > don't > >> >> read > >> >> > or > >> >> > > >> write epoch, new IBP = do). > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> best, > >> >> > > >> Colin > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2021, at 18:46, Luke Chen wrote: > >> >> > > >> > Hi Colin, > >> >> > > >> > Thanks for your comment. > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> How are we going to avoid the situation where the broker > >> >> restarts, > >> >> > > and > >> >> > > >> > the same generation number is reused? > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > Actually, this KIP doesn't have anything to do with the > >> brokers. > >> >> The > >> >> > > >> > "generation" field I added, is in the subscription metadata, > >> which > >> >> > > will > >> >> > > >> not > >> >> > > >> > be deserialized by brokers. The metadata is only > deserialized > >> by > >> >> > > >> consumer > >> >> > > >> > lead. And for the consumer lead, the only thing the lead > cared > >> >> > about, > >> >> > > is > >> >> > > >> > the highest generation of the ownedPartitions among all the > >> >> > consumers. > >> >> > > >> With > >> >> > > >> > the highest generation of the ownedPartitions, the consumer > >> lead > >> >> can > >> >> > > >> > distribute the partitions as sticky as possible, and most > >> >> > importantly, > >> >> > > >> > without errors. > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > That is, after this KIP, if the broker restarts, and the > same > >> >> > > generation > >> >> > > >> > number is reused, it won't break current rebalance behavior. > >> But > >> >> > it'll > >> >> > > >> help > >> >> > > >> > the consumer lead do the sticky assignments correctly. > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > Thank you. > >> >> > > >> > Luke > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 6:30 AM Colin McCabe < > >> co...@cmccabe.xyz> > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> How are we going to avoid the situation where the broker > >> >> restarts, > >> >> > > and > >> >> > > >> the > >> >> > > >> >> same generation number is reused? > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> best, > >> >> > > >> >> Colin > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021, at 16:36, Luke Chen wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > Hi all, > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-792: Add "generation" > >> field > >> >> > into > >> >> > > >> >> > consumer protocol. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > The goal of this KIP is to allow the assignor/consumer > >> >> > coordinator > >> >> > > to > >> >> > > >> >> have > >> >> > > >> >> > a way to identify the out-of-date members/assignments, to > >> avoid > >> >> > > >> rebalance > >> >> > > >> >> > stuck issues in current protocol. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Detailed description can be found here: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=191336614 > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Any feedback is welcome. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Thank you. > >> >> > > >> >> > Luke > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > -- Guozhang > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > -- Guozhang > >> > > >
