Thanks for the comment, Jun, 1. Yes, you are right. This could also happen with the current quota mechanism because we are essentially muting the socket during throttle time. There might be two ways to solve this. A) use another socket to send heartbeat. B) let the GroupCoordinator know that the client will not heartbeat for some time. It seems the first solution is cleaner.
2. For consumer it seems returning an empty response is a better option. In the producer case, if there is a spike in traffic. The brokers will see queued up requests, but that is hard to avoid unless we have connection level quota, which is a bigger change and may be easier to discuss it in a separate KIP. Thanks, Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi, Jiangjie, > > Thanks for bringing this up. A couple of quick thoughts. > > 1. If the throttle time is large, what can happen is that a consumer won't > be able to heart beat to the group coordinator frequent enough. In that > case, even with this KIP, it seems there could be frequent consumer group > rebalances. > > 2. If we return a response immediately, for the consumer, do we return the > requested data or an empty response? If we do the former, it may not > protect against the case when there are multiple consumer instances > associated with the same user/clientid. > > Jun > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We would like to start the discussion on KIP-219. > > > > The KIP tries to improve quota throttling time communication between > > brokers and clients to avoid clients timeout in case of long throttling > > time. > > > > The KIP link is following: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > 219+-+Improve+quota+ > > communication > > > > Comments are welcome. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > >
