Hi Neha,
Following are some numbers we have in the pipeline. It would be very
helpful to see how it goes with the proposed protocol. We will try to do
some tests with the current patch as well. Please also let us know if you
want further information.
32 brokers, 1Gbps NIC
547 topics
27 chars average topic name length
2-3 consumers for each topic
Four 26-node mirror maker instances (Four different consumer groups). Each
node has 4 consumers. (Each mirror maker instance has 104 consumers)
We are actually using selective copy, so we have a big whitelist for each
mirror maker, copying about 100 topics (We expect it to grow to a couple of
hundreds).
The mirror makers are co-located with target cluster, so the consumer
traffic go through the WAN.
We have 5 to 6 wildcard consumers consuming from all the topics.
The topic creation frequency is not high now, roughly about 1 / day.
The scenarios we are interested in are:
1. The time for one round of rebalance.
2. The time for a rolling bounce of mirror maker.
3. For wildcard topic, does metadata sync up cause problem.
Thanks,
Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another use-case I was thinking of was something like rack-aware
> assignment of partitions to clients. This would require some
> additional topic metadata to be propagated to and from the coordinator
> and you would need some way to resolve conflicts for such strategies.
> I think that could be addressed by attaching a generation id to the
> metadata and use that (i.e., pick the highest) in order to resolve
> conflicts without another round of join-group requests.
>
> Likewise, without delete/recreate, partition counts are a sort of
> generation id since they are non-decreasing. If we need to account for
> delete/recreate that could perhaps be addressed by an explicit
> (per-topic) generation id attached to each topic in the metadata blob.
> Does that make sense? I think that covers my concerns wrt the
> split-brain issues.
>
> I'm still a bit wary of the n^2*m sized rebroadcast of all the
> metadata - mainly because for various reasons at LinkedIn, we are
> actually using large explicit whitelists (and not wildcards) in
> several of our mirroring pipelines. At this point I feel that is a
> reasonable cost to pay for having all the logic in one place (i.e.,
> client side) but I would like to think a bit more on that.
>
> Joel
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Onur Karaman
> <okara...@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote:
> > From what I understand, the "largest number of partitions" trick is based
> > on the assumption that topics can only expand their partitions. What
> > happens when a topic gets deleted and recreated? This breaks that
> > assumption.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Neha Narkhede <n...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for re-reviewing Joel.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 2:51 AM -0700, "Joel Koshy" <
> jjkosh...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > I think we think this proposal addresses 100% of the split brain
> issues
> >> > ever seen in the ZK-based protocol, but I think you think there are
> still
> >> > issues. Can you explain what your thinking of and when you think it
> would
> >> > happen? I want to make sure you aren't assuming
> client-side=>split-brain
> >> > since I think that is totally not the case.
> >>
> >> Yes I had concluded that client-side assignment would still result in
> >> split-brain wrt partition counts, but I overlooked a key sentence in
> >> the wiki - i.e., that the assignment algorithm for consumers can just
> >> use the largest number of partitions for each topic reported by any of
> >> the consumers. i.e., I assumed that consumers would just fail
> >> rebalance if the partition counts were inconsistent but that is not
> >> the case since this conflict can be easily resolved as described
> >> without further join-group requests. Sorry about that. There is still
> >> the issue of the coordinator having to send back n*m worth of
> >> metadata, but that was not my biggest concern. I'll look over it again
> >> and reply back tomorrow.
> >>
> >> Joel
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Jay Kreps wrote:
> >> > Hey Joel,
> >> >
> >> > I really don't think we should do both. There are pros and cons but we
> >> > should make a decision and work on operationalizing one approach.
> Much of
> >> > really making something like this work is getting all the bugs out,
> >> getting
> >> > monitoring in place, getting rigorous system tests in place. Trying
> to do
> >> > those things twice with the same resources will just mean we do them
> half
> >> > as well. I also think this buys nothing from the user's point of
> >> view--they
> >> > want co-ordination that works correctly, the debate we are having is
> >> purely
> >> > a "how should we build that" debate. So this is really not the kind of
> >> > thing we'd want to make pluggable and if we did that would just
> >> complicate
> >> > life for the user.
> >> >
> >> > I think we think this proposal addresses 100% of the split brain
> issues
> >> > ever seen in the ZK-based protocol, but I think you think there are
> still
> >> > issues. Can you explain what your thinking of and when you think it
> would
> >> > happen? I want to make sure you aren't assuming
> client-side=>split-brain
> >> > since I think that is totally not the case.
> >> >
> >> > With respect to "herd issues" I actually think all the proposals
> address
> >> > this by scaling the co-ordinator out to all nodes and making the
> >> > co-ordination vastly cheaper. No proposal, of course, gets rid of the
> >> fact
> >> > that all clients rejoin at once when there is a membership change, but
> >> that
> >> > is kind of fundamental to the problem.
> >> >
> >> > -Jay
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Joel Koshy wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I actually feel these set of tests (whatever they may be) are
> somewhat
> >> >> irrelevant here. My main concern with the current client-side
> proposal
> >> >> (i.e., without Becket's follow-up suggestions) is that it makes a
> >> >> significant compromise to the original charter of the new consumer -
> >> >> i.e., reduce/eliminate herd and split brain problems in both group
> >> >> management and partition assignment. I understand the need for
> >> >> client-side partition assignment in some use cases (which we are also
> >> >> interested in), but I also think we should make every effort to keep
> >> >> full server-side coordination for the remaining (majority) of use
> >> >> cases especially if it does not complicate the protocol. The proposed
> >> >> changes do not complicate the protocol IMO - i.e., there is no
> further
> >> >> modification to the request/response formats beyond the current
> >> >> client-side proposal. It only involves a trivial reinterpretation of
> >> >> the content of the protocol metadata field.
> >> >>
> >> >> Joel
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> >> >> > Hey Becket,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In that case, the broker side partition assignment would be ideal
> >> because
> >> >> >> it avoids
> >> >> >> issues like metadata inconsistency / split brain / exploding
> >> >> subscription
> >> >> >> set propagation.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As per our previous discussions regarding each of those concerns
> >> >> (referring
> >> >> > to this email thread, KIP calls and JIRA comments), we are going to
> >> run a
> >> >> > set of tests using the LinkedIn deployment numbers that we will
> wait
> >> for
> >> >> > you to share. The purpose is to see if those concerns are really
> >> valid or
> >> >> > not. I'd prefer to see that before making any more changes that
> will
> >> >> > complicate the protocol.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Jiangjie Qin > >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Hi folks,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> After further discussion in LinkedIn, we found that while having a
> >> more
> >> >> >> general group management protocol is very useful, the vast
> majority
> >> of
> >> >> the
> >> >> >> clients will not use customized partition assignment strategy. In
> >> that
> >> >> >> case, the broker side partition assignment would be ideal because
> it
> >> >> avoids
> >> >> >> issues like metadata inconsistency / split brain / exploding
> >> >> subscription
> >> >> >> set propagation.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So we have the following proposal that satisfies the majority of
> the
> >> >> >> clients' needs without changing the currently proposed binary
> >> protocol.
> >> >> >> i.e., Continue to support broker-side assignment if the assignment
> >> >> strategy
> >> >> >> is recognized by the coordinator.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 1. Keep the binary protocol as currently proposed.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2. Change the way we interpret ProtocolMetadata:
> >> >> >> 2.1 On consumer side, change partition.assignment.strategy to
> >> >> >> partition.assignor.class. Implement the something like the
> following
> >> >> >> PartitionAssignor Interface:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> public interface PartitionAssignor {
> >> >> >> List protocolTypes();
> >> >> >> byte[] protocolMetadata();
> >> >> >> // return the Topic->List map that are assigned to this
> >> >> >> consumer.
> >> >> >> List assignPartitions(String protocolType, byte[]
> >> >> >> responseProtocolMetadata);
> >> >> >> }
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> public abstract class AbstractPartitionAssignor implements
> >> >> >> PartitionAssignor {
> >> >> >> protected final KafkaConsumer consumer;
> >> >> >> AbstractPartitionAssignor(KafkaConsumer consumer) {
> >> >> >> this.consumer = consumer;
> >> >> >> }
> >> >> >> }
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2.2 The ProtocolMetadata in JoinGroupRequest will be
> >> >> >> partitionAssignor.protocolMetadata(). When
> partition.assignor.class
> >> is
> >> >> >> "range" or "roundrobin", the ProtocolMetadata in JoinGroupRequest
> >> will
> >> >> be a
> >> >> >> JSON subscription set. ("range", "roundrobin" will be reserved
> >> words, we
> >> >> >> can also consider reserving some Prefix such as "broker-" to be
> more
> >> >> clear)
> >> >> >> 2.3 On broker side when ProtocolType is "range" or "roundroubin",
> >> >> >> coordinator will parse the ProtocolMetadata in the
> JoinGroupRequest
> >> and
> >> >> >> assign the partitions for consumers. In the JoinGroupResponse, the
> >> >> >> ProtocolMetadata will be the global assignment of partitions.
> >> >> >> 2.4 On client side, after receiving the JoinGroupResponse,
> >> >> >> partitionAssignor.assignPartitions() will be invoked to return the
> >> >> actual
> >> >> >> assignment. If the assignor is RangeAssignor or
> RoundRobinAssignor,
> >> they
> >> >> >> will parse the assignment from the ProtocolMetadata returned by
> >> >> >> coordinator.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This approach has a few merits:
> >> >> >> 1. Does not change the proposed binary protocol, which is still
> >> general.
> >> >> >> 2. The majority of the consumers will not suffer from inconsistent
> >> >> metadata
> >> >> >> / split brain / exploding subscription set propagation. This is
> >> >> >> specifically to deal with the issue that the current proposal
> caters
> >> to
> >> >> a
> >> >> >> 20% use-case while adversely impacting the more common 80%
> use-cases.
> >> >> >> 3. Easy to implement. The only thing needed is implement a
> >> partitioner
> >> >> >> class. For most users, the default range and roundrobin
> partitioner
> >> are
> >> >> >> good enough.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thoughts?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Jason Gustafson
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Follow-up from the kip call:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 1. Onur brought up the question of whether this protocol
> provides
> >> >> enough
> >> >> >> > coordination capabilities to be generally useful in practice (is
> >> that
> >> >> >> > accurate, Onur?). If it doesn't, then each use case would
> probably
> >> >> need a
> >> >> >> > dependence on zookeeper anyway, and we haven't really gained
> >> anything.
> >> >> >> The
> >> >> >> > group membership provided by this protocol is a useful primitive
> >> for
> >> >> >> > coordination, but it's limited in the sense that everything
> shared
> >> >> among
> >> >> >> > the group has to be communicated at the time the group is
> created.
> >> If
> >> >> any
> >> >> >> > shared data changes, then the only way the group can ensure
> >> agreement
> >> >> is
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> > force a rebalance. This is expensive since all members must
> stall
> >> >> while
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> > rebalancing takes place. As we have also seen, there is a
> practical
> >> >> limit
> >> >> >> > on the amount of metadata that can be sent through this protocol
> >> when
> >> >> >> > groups get a little larger. This protocol is therefore not
> >> suitable to
> >> >> >> > cases which require frequent communication or which require a
> large
> >> >> >> amount
> >> >> >> > of data to be communicated. For the use cases listed on the
> wiki,
> >> >> neither
> >> >> >> > of these appear to be an issue, but there may be other
> limitations
> >> >> which
> >> >> >> > would limit reuse of the protocol. Perhaps it would be
> sufficient
> >> to
> >> >> >> sketch
> >> >> >> > how these cases might work?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 2. We talked a little bit about the issue of metadata churn.
> Becket
> >> >> >> brought
> >> >> >> > up the interesting point that not only do we depend on topic
> >> metadata
> >> >> >> > changing relatively infrequently, but we also expect timely
> >> agreement
> >> >> >> among
> >> >> >> > the brokers on what that metadata is. To resolve this, we can
> have
> >> the
> >> >> >> > consumers fetch metadata from the coordinator. We still depend
> on
> >> >> topic
> >> >> >> > metadata not changing frequently, but this should resolve any
> >> >> >> disagreement
> >> >> >> > among the brokers themselves. In fact, since we expect that
> >> >> disagreement
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> > relatively rare, we can have the consumers fetch from the
> >> coordinator
> >> >> >> only
> >> >> >> > when when a disagreement occurs. The nice thing about this
> >> proposal is
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> > it doesn't affect the join group semantics, so the coordinator
> >> would
> >> >> >> remain
> >> >> >> > oblivious to the metadata used by the group for agreement.
> Also, if
> >> >> >> > metadata churn becomes an issue, it might be possible to have
> the
> >> >> >> > coordinator provide a snapshot for the group to ensure that a
> >> >> generation
> >> >> >> > would be able to reach agreement (this would probably require
> >> adding
> >> >> >> > groupId/generation to the metadata request).
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 3. We talked briefly about support for multiple protocols in the
> >> join
> >> >> >> group
> >> >> >> > request in order to allow changing the assignment strategy
> without
> >> >> >> > downtime. I think it's a little doubtful that this would get
> much
> >> use
> >> >> in
> >> >> >> > practice, but I agree it's a nice option to have on the table.
> An
> >> >> >> > alternative, for the sake of argument, is to have each member
> >> provide
> >> >> >> only
> >> >> >> > one version of the protocol, and to let the coordinator choose
> the
> >> >> >> protocol
> >> >> >> > with the largest number of supporters. All members which can't
> >> support
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> > selected protocol would be kicked out of the group. The drawback
> >> in a
> >> >> >> > rolling upgrade is that the total capacity of the group would be
> >> >> >> > momentarily halved. It would also be a little tricky to handle
> the
> >> >> case
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> > retrying when a consumer is kicked out of the group. We wouldn't
> >> want
> >> >> it
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> > be able to effect a rebalance, for example, if it would just be
> >> kicked
> >> >> >> out
> >> >> >> > again. That would probably complicate the group management
> logic on
> >> >> the
> >> >> >> > coordinator.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> >> > Jason
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Jiangjie Qin
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > Jun,
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Yes, I agree. If the metadata can be synced quickly there
> should
> >> >> not be
> >> >> >> > an
> >> >> >> > > issue. It just occurred to me that there is a proposal to
> allow
> >> >> >> consuming
> >> >> >> > > from followers in ISR, that could potentially cause more
> frequent
> >> >> >> > metadata
> >> >> >> > > change for consumers. Would that be an issue?
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Thanks,
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Jason Gustafson <
> >> >> ja...@confluent.io>
> >> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > > Hi Jun,
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > Answers below:
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > 1. When there are multiple common protocols in the
> >> >> JoinGroupRequest,
> >> >> >> > > which
> >> >> >> > > > one would the coordinator pick?
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > I was intending to use the list to indicate preference. If
> all
> >> >> group
> >> >> >> > > > members support protocols ["A", "B"] in that order, then we
> >> will
> >> >> >> choose
> >> >> >> > > > "A." If some support ["B", "A"], then we would either choose
> >> >> based on
> >> >> >> > > > respective counts or just randomly. The main use case of
> >> >> supporting
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> > > > list is for rolling upgrades when a change is made to the
> >> >> assignment
> >> >> >> > > > strategy. In that case, the new assignment strategy would be
> >> >> listed
> >> >> >> > first
> >> >> >> > > > in the upgraded client. I think it's debatable whether this
> >> >> feature
> >> >> >> > would
> >> >> >> > > > get much use in practice, so we might consider dropping it.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > 2. If the protocols don't agree, the group construction
> fails.
> >> >> What
> >> >> >> > > exactly
> >> >> >> > > > does it mean? Do we send an error in every JoinGroupResponse
> >> and
> >> >> >> remove
> >> >> >> > > all
> >> >> >> > > > members in the group in the coordinator?
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > Yes, that is right. It would be handled similarly to
> >> inconsistent
> >> >> >> > > > assignment strategies in the current protocol. The
> coordinator
> >> >> >> returns
> >> >> >> > an
> >> >> >> > > > error in each join group response, and the client propagates
> >> the
> >> >> >> error
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > > > the user.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > 3. Consumer embedded protocol: The proposal has two
> different
> >> >> formats
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> > > > subscription depending on whether wildcards are used or not.
> >> This
> >> >> >> > seems a
> >> >> >> > > > bit complicated. Would it be better to always use the
> metadata
> >> >> hash?
> >> >> >> > The
> >> >> >> > > > clients know the subscribed topics already. This way, the
> >> client
> >> >> code
> >> >> >> > > > behaves the same whether wildcards are used or not.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > Yeah, I think this is possible (Neha also suggested it). I
> >> haven't
> >> >> >> > > updated
> >> >> >> > > > the wiki yet, but the patch I started working on uses only
> the
> >> >> >> metadata
> >> >> >> > > > hash. In the case that an explicit topic list is provided,
> the
> >> >> hash
> >> >> >> > just
> >> >> >> > > > covers the metadata for those topics.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > Thanks,
> >> >> >> > > > Jason
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Jun Rao
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > Jason,
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > Thanks for the writeup. A few comments below.
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > 1. When there are multiple common protocols in the
> >> >> >> JoinGroupRequest,
> >> >> >> > > > which
> >> >> >> > > > > one would the coordinator pick?
> >> >> >> > > > > 2. If the protocols don't agree, the group construction
> >> fails.
> >> >> What
> >> >> >> > > > exactly
> >> >> >> > > > > does it mean? Do we send an error in every
> JoinGroupResponse
> >> and
> >> >> >> > remove
> >> >> >> > > > all
> >> >> >> > > > > members in the group in the coordinator?
> >> >> >> > > > > 3. Consumer embedded protocol: The proposal has two
> different
> >> >> >> formats
> >> >> >> > > of
> >> >> >> > > > > subscription depending on whether wildcards are used or
> not.
> >> >> This
> >> >> >> > > seems a
> >> >> >> > > > > bit complicated. Would it be better to always use the
> >> metadata
> >> >> >> hash?
> >> >> >> > > The
> >> >> >> > > > > clients know the subscribed topics already. This way, the
> >> client
> >> >> >> code
> >> >> >> > > > > behaves the same whether wildcards are used or not.
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > Jiangjie,
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > With respect to rebalance churns due to topics being
> >> >> >> created/deleted.
> >> >> >> > > > With
> >> >> >> > > > > the new consumer, the rebalance can probably settle within
> >> 200ms
> >> >> >> when
> >> >> >> > > > there
> >> >> >> > > > > is a topic change. So, as long as we are not changing
> topic
> >> more
> >> >> >> > than 5
> >> >> >> > > > > times per sec, there shouldn't be constant churns, right?
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > Jun
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Jason Gustafson <
> >> >> >> ja...@confluent.io
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > Hi Kafka Devs,
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > One of the nagging issues in the current design of the
> new
> >> >> >> consumer
> >> >> >> > > has
> >> >> >> > > > > > been the need to support a variety of assignment
> >> strategies.
> >> >> >> We've
> >> >> >> > > > > > encountered this in particular in the design of copycat
> and
> >> >> the
> >> >> >> > > > > processing
> >> >> >> > > > > > framework (KIP-28). From what I understand, Samza also
> has
> >> a
> >> >> >> number
> >> >> >> > > of
> >> >> >> > > > > use
> >> >> >> > > > > > cases with custom assignment needs. The new consumer
> >> protocol
> >> >> >> > > supports
> >> >> >> > > > > new
> >> >> >> > > > > > assignment strategies by hooking them into the broker.
> For
> >> >> many
> >> >> >> > > > > > environments, this is a major pain and in some cases, a
> >> >> >> > non-starter.
> >> >> >> > > It
> >> >> >> > > > > > also challenges the validation that the coordinator can
> >> >> provide.
> >> >> >> > For
> >> >> >> > > > > > example, some assignment strategies call for partitions
> to
> >> be
> >> >> >> > > assigned
> >> >> >> > > > > > multiple times, which means that the coordinator can
> only
> >> >> check
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > > > > > partitions have been assigned at least once.
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > To solve these issues, we'd like to propose moving
> >> assignment
> >> >> to
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > > > > > client. I've written a wiki which outlines some protocol
> >> >> changes
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> > > > > achieve
> >> >> >> > > > > > this:
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Client-side+Assignment+Proposal
> >> >> >> > > > > > .
> >> >> >> > > > > > To summarize briefly, instead of the coordinator
> assigning
> >> the
> >> >> >> > > > partitions
> >> >> >> > > > > > itself, all subscriptions are forwarded to each member
> of
> >> the
> >> >> >> group
> >> >> >> > > > which
> >> >> >> > > > > > then decides independently which partitions it should
> >> consume.
> >> >> >> The
> >> >> >> > > > > protocol
> >> >> >> > > > > > provides a mechanism for the coordinator to validate
> that
> >> all
> >> >> >> > > consumers
> >> >> >> > > > > use
> >> >> >> > > > > > the same assignment strategy, but it does not ensure
> that
> >> the
> >> >> >> > > resulting
> >> >> >> > > > > > assignment is "correct." This provides a powerful
> >> capability
> >> >> for
> >> >> >> > > users
> >> >> >> > > > to
> >> >> >> > > > > > control the full data flow on the client side. They
> control
> >> >> how
> >> >> >> > data
> >> >> >> > > is
> >> >> >> > > > > > written to partitions through the Partitioner interface
> and
> >> >> they
> >> >> >> > > > control
> >> >> >> > > > > > how data is consumed through the assignment strategy,
> all
> >> >> without
> >> >> >> > > > > touching
> >> >> >> > > > > > the server.
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > Of course nothing comes for free. In particular, this
> >> change
> >> >> >> > removes
> >> >> >> > > > the
> >> >> >> > > > > > ability of the coordinator to validate that commits are
> >> made
> >> >> by
> >> >> >> > > > consumers
> >> >> >> > > > > > who were assigned the respective partition. This might
> not
> >> be
> >> >> too
> >> >> >> > bad
> >> >> >> > > > > since
> >> >> >> > > > > > we retain the ability to validate the generation id,
> but it
> >> >> is a
> >> >> >> > > > > potential
> >> >> >> > > > > > concern. We have considered alternative protocols which
> >> add a
> >> >> >> > second
> >> >> >> > > > > > round-trip to the protocol in order to give the
> coordinator
> >> >> the
> >> >> >> > > ability
> >> >> >> > > > > to
> >> >> >> > > > > > confirm the assignment. As mentioned above, the
> >> coordinator is
> >> >> >> > > somewhat
> >> >> >> > > > > > limited in what it can actually validate, but this would
> >> >> return
> >> >> >> its
> >> >> >> > > > > ability
> >> >> >> > > > > > to validate commits. The tradeoff is that it increases
> the
> >> >> >> > protocol's
> >> >> >> > > > > > complexity which means more ways for the protocol to
> fail
> >> and
> >> >> >> > > > > consequently
> >> >> >> > > > > > more edge cases in the code.
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > It also misses an opportunity to generalize the group
> >> >> membership
> >> >> >> > > > protocol
> >> >> >> > > > > > for additional use cases. In fact, after you've gone to
> the
> >> >> >> trouble
> >> >> >> > > of
> >> >> >> > > > > > moving assignment to the client, the main thing that is
> >> left
> >> >> in
> >> >> >> > this
> >> >> >> > > > > > protocol is basically a general group management
> >> capability.
> >> >> This
> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> > > > > > exactly what is needed for a few cases that are
> currently
> >> >> under
> >> >> >> > > > > discussion
> >> >> >> > > > > > (e.g. copycat or single-writer producer). We've taken
> this
> >> >> >> further
> >> >> >> > > step
> >> >> >> > > > > in
> >> >> >> > > > > > the proposal and attempted to envision what that general
> >> >> protocol
> >> >> >> > > might
> >> >> >> > > > > > look like and how it could be used both by the consumer
> and
> >> >> for
> >> >> >> > some
> >> >> >> > > of
> >> >> >> > > > > > these other cases.
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > Anyway, since time is running out on the new consumer,
> we
> >> have
> >> >> >> > > perhaps
> >> >> >> > > > > one
> >> >> >> > > > > > last chance to consider a significant change in the
> >> protocol
> >> >> like
> >> >> >> > > this,
> >> >> >> > > > > so
> >> >> >> > > > > > have a look at the wiki and share your thoughts. I've no
> >> doubt
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> > > > some
> >> >> >> > > > > > ideas seem clearer in my mind than they do on paper, so
> ask
> >> >> >> > questions
> >> >> >> > > > if
> >> >> >> > > > > > there is any confusion.
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > Thanks!
> >> >> >> > > > > > Jason
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > Neha
> >> >>
> >>
>
