Yes, I agree that one config would be better. Just a bit more work to
achieve the desired effect for the Consumer.

Ismael

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Rajini Sivaram <rajinisiva...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ismael,
>
> Yes, agree. My concern was that a connection can be shutdown uncleanly at
> any time. If a client is in the middle of a request, then it times out
> after min(request.timeout.ms, tcp-timeout). If we add another config
> option
> connect.timeout.ms, then we will sometimes wait for min(connect.timeout.ms
> ,
> tcp-timeout) and sometimes for min(request.timeout.ms, tcp-timeout),
> depending
> on connection state. One config option feels neater to me.
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > Rajini,
> >
> > For this to have the desired effect, we'd probably need to lower the
> > default request.timeout.ms for the consumer and fix the underlying
> reason
> > why it is a little over 5 minutes at the moment.
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Rajini Sivaram <rajinisiva...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > Sorry, what I meant was: Can you reuse the existing configuration
> option
> > > request.timeout,ms , instead of adding a new config and add the
> behaviour
> > > that you have proposed in the KIP for the connection phase using this
> > > timeout? I think the timeout for connection is useful. I am not sure we
> > > need another configuration option to implement it.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rajini
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:06 AM, 东方甲乙 <254479...@qq.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Rajini.
> > > >
> > > > When kafka node' machine is shutdown or network is closed, the
> > connecting
> > > > phase could not use the request.timeout.ms, because the client
> haven't
> > > > send a req yet.   And no response for the nio, the selector will not
> > > close
> > > > the connect, so it will not choose other good node to get the
> metadata.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
> > > > *发件人:* "Rajini Sivaram" <rajinisiva...@gmail.com>;
> > > > *发送时间:* 2017年5月22日(星期一) 20:17
> > > > *收件人:* "dev" <dev@kafka.apache.org>;
> > > > *主题:* Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-148: Add a connect timeout for client
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi David,
> > > >
> > > > Is there a reason why you wouldn't want to use request.timeout.ms as
> > the
> > > > timeout parameter for connections? Then you would use the same
> timeout
> > > for
> > > > connected and connecting phases when shutdown is unclean. You could
> > still
> > > > use the timeout to ensure that next metadata request is sent to
> another
> > > > node.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rajini
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 9:51 AM, 东方甲乙 <254479...@qq.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Guozhang,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the clarify. For the clarify 2, I think the key thing is
> > not
> > > > > users control how much time in maximum to wait for inside code, but
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > network client can be aware of the connecting can't be finished and
> > > try a
> > > > > good node. In the producer.sender even the selector.poll can
> timeout,
> > > but
> > > > > the next time is also not close the previous connecting and try
> > another
> > > > > good node.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In out test env, QA shutdown one of the leader node, the producer
> > send
> > > > the
> > > > > request will timeout and close the node's connection then request
> the
> > > > > metadata.  But sometimes the request node is also the shutdown
> node.
> > > > When
> > > > > connecting the shutting down node to get the metadata, it is in the
> > > > > connecting phase, network client mark the connecting node's state
> to
> > > > > CONNECTING, but if the node is shutdown,  the socket can't be aware
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > connecting is broken. Though the selector.poll has timeout
> parameter,
> > > but
> > > > > it will not close the connection, so the next
> > > > > time in the "networkclient.maybeUpdate" it will check if
> > > > > isAnyNodeConnecting, then will not connect to any good node the get
> > the
> > > > > metadata.  It need about several minutes to
> > > > > aware the connecting is timeout and try other node.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So I want to add a connect.timeout parameter,  the selector can
> find
> > > the
> > > > > connecting is timeout and close the connection.  It seems the
> > currently
> > > > the
> > > > > timeout value passed in `selector.poll()`
> > > > > seems can not do this.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
> > > > > 发件人: "Guozhang Wang";<wangg...@gmail.com>;
> > > > > 发送时间: 2017年5月16日(星期二) 凌晨1:51
> > > > > 收件人: "dev@kafka.apache.org"<dev@kafka.apache.org>;
> > > > >
> > > > > 主题: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-148: Add a connect timeout for client
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi David,
> > > > >
> > > > > I may be a bit confused before, just clarifying a few things:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. As you mentioned, a client will always try to first establish
> the
> > > > > connection with a broker node before it tries to send any request
> to
> > > it.
> > > > > And after connection is established, it will either continuously
> send
> > > > many
> > > > > requests (e.g. produce) for just a single request (e.g. metadata)
> to
> > > the
> > > > > broker, so these two phases are indeed different.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. In the connected phase, connections.max.idle.ms is used to
> > > > > auto-disconnect the socket if no requests has been sent / received
> > > during
> > > > > that period of time; in the connecting phase, we always try to
> create
> > > the
> > > > > socket via "socketChannel.connect" in a non-blocking call, and then
> > > > checks
> > > > > if the connection has been established, but all the callers of this
> > > > > function (in either producer or consumer) has a timeout parameter
> as
> > in
> > > > > `selector.poll()`, and the timeout parameter is set either by
> > > > calculations
> > > > > based on metadata.expiration.time and backoff for producer#sender,
> or
> > > by
> > > > > directly passed values from consumer#poll(timeout), so although
> there
> > > is
> > > > no
> > > > > directly config controlling that, users can still control how much
> > time
> > > > in
> > > > > maximum to wait for inside code.
> > > > >
> > > > > I originally thought your scenarios is more on the connected phase,
> > but
> > > > now
> > > > > I feel you are talking about the connecting phase. For that case, I
> > > still
> > > > > feel currently the timeout value passed in `selector.poll()` which
> is
> > > > > controllable from user code should be sufficient?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 2:37 AM, 东方甲乙 <254479...@qq.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry for the delay, thanks for the question.  It seems two
> > different
> > > > > > parameters to me:
> > > > > > connect.timeout.ms: only work for the connecting phrase, after
> > > > connected
> > > > > > phrase this parameter is not used.
> > > > > > connections.max.idle.ms: currently not work in the connecting
> > phrase
> > > > > > (only select return readyKeys >0) will add to the expired
> manager,
> > > > after
> > > > > > connected will check if the connection is still alive in some
> time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Even if we change the connections.max.idle.ms to work including
> > the
> > > > > > connecting phrase, we can not set this parameter to a small
> value,
> > > such
> > > > > as
> > > > > > 5 seconds. Because the client is maybe busy sending message to
> > other
> > > > > node,
> > > > > > it will be disconnected in 5 seconds, so the default value of
> > > > > > connections.max.idle.ms is setting to a larger time. We should
> > have
> > > > two
> > > > > > parameters to control the connecting phrase behavior and the
> > > connected
> > > > > > phrase behavior, do you think so?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
> > > > > > 发件人: "Guozhang Wang";<wangg...@gmail.com>;
> > > > > > 发送时间: 2017年5月6日(星期六) 上午7:52
> > > > > > 收件人: "dev@kafka.apache.org"<dev@kafka.apache.org>;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 主题: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-148: Add a connect timeout for client
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello David,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. For the described issue, I'm wondering if it
> > can
> > > be
> > > > > > resolved by tuning the CONNECTIONS_MAX_IDLE_MS_CONFIG (
> > > > > > connections.max.idle.ms) on the client side? Default is 9
> minutes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 8:22 AM, 东方甲乙 <254479...@qq.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Currently in our test environment, we found that after one of
> the
> > > > > broker
> > > > > > > node crash (reboot or os crash), the client may still be
> > connecting
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > crash node to send metadata request or other request, and it
> > needs
> > > > > > several
> > > > > > > minutes to be aware that the connection is timeout then try
> > another
> > > > > node
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > connect to send the request. Then the client may still not be
> > aware
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > metadata change after several minutes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So I want to add a connect timeout on the  client,  please
> take a
> > > > look
> > > > > > at:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > > > > > 148%3A+Add+a+connect+timeout+for+client
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > David
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to