And also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-9952
Ismael On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 2:18 PM Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> wrote: > Hi Jose, > > We did indeed run into a perf regression related to increased fetch > request rate due to hw propagation to followers: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-9731 > > Ismael > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 12:34 PM José Armando García Sancio > <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >> Hi Alyssa, >> >> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 12:52 PM Alyssa Huang >> <ahu...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: >> > Is the intent to say that in addition to all the current conditions, >> > the HWM check is an additional condition that *must *be met in order for >> > the fetch request to be parked? Just confirming since I'm not sure if I >> > should interpret "may also park" too literally. >> >> It is an additional condition that may be considered. The difficulty >> and my hesitation in being prescriptive in the implementation is that >> completing the FETCH request because of the HWM may impact the >> utilization and throughput of Kafka. In many cases there is a >> trade-off between lower latencies and higher throughput. >> >> My position is that the remote HWM can be used when handling FETCH >> requests but the exact handling and implementation may change. >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> -José >> >
