Hi Chia,
Thanks for taking another look. From what I understand, pruning has to wait
for the slowest group on the state partition to snapshot before it can
delete old records.

For ex: if groups A and B share a state partition:
- A snapshots frequently .. its latest snapshot is at offset 900.
- B has low traffic ... its latest snapshot is still at offset 100.

So the prune point is min(900, 100) which is 100, so only offsets 0–99 can
be deleted. Everything A writes after that stays on disk until B snapshots
again. So B's threshold is controlling the size than A's snapshots, whether
it's in bytes or a count.

I had moved the KIP to bytes after your earlier suggestion (chia_01), but I
agree the pruning behaviour makes bytes much less useful here than in a
buffering case like KIP-1325, where a byte limit directly bounds memory.

I think we had earlier calculations showed update records are a fairly
constant size, so a count gives nearly the same result.

I shall revise the KIP back to a count based approach and follow up here.

Thanks,
Murali

On Tue, Oct 6, 2026 at 8:52 AM Chia-Ping Tsai <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> After re-reading the KIP, I'm not sure whether bytes is better than count.
> Eventually the prune must wait for "all" share partitions on the state
> partition to be snapshotted. That means users can hardly evaluate the
> retained log size from a per-partition threshold, no matter it is count or
> bytes.
>
> On the other side, the concept of "per-group" is good to me, since it
> allows the low-traffic groups to snapshot more often.
>
> So I'm wondering whether a per-group count config (plus raising the broker
> upper bound) is enough for this KIP.
>
> Best,
> Chia-Ping
>
> On 2026-05-22 19:30 UTC Muralidhar Basani via dev wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would like to start a discussion on KIP-1349, which allows configurable
> > snapshot frequency of share groups.
> >
> > KIP :
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1349%3A+Configurable+snapshot+frequency+for+share+groups
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Murali
> >
>

Reply via email to