Hey Guazhang,

Got it. Thanks for the detailed explanation. I guess my point is that we
can probably achieve the best of both worlds, i.e. maintain the existing
behavior of ack="all" while improving the tail latency.

Thanks,
Dong



On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Dong,
>
> Yes, in terms of fault tolerance "quorum" does not do better than "all",
> as I said, with {min.isr} to X+1 Kafka is able to tolerate X failures only.
> So if A and B are partitioned off at the same time, then there are two
> concurrent failures and we do not guarantee all acked messages will be
> retained.
>
> The goal of my approach is to maintain the behavior of ack="all", which
> happen to do better than what Kafka is actually guaranteed: when both A and
> B are partitioned off, produced records will not be acked since "all"
> requires all replicas (not only ISRs, my previous email has an incorrect
> term) are required. This is doing better than tolerating X failures, which
> I was proposing to keep, so that we would not introduce any regression
> "surprises" to users who are already using "all". In other words, "quorum"
> is trading a bit of failure tolerance that is strictly defined on min.isr
> for better tail latency.
>
>
> Guozhang
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Guozhang,
>>
>> According to the new proposal, with 3 replicas, min.isr=2 and
>> acks="quorum", it seems that acknowledged messages can still be truncated
>> in the network partition scenario you mentioned, right? So I guess the goal
>> is for some user to achieve better tail latency at the cost of potential
>> message loss?
>>
>> If this is the case, then I think it may be better to adopt an approach
>> where controller dynamically turn on/off this optimization. This provides
>> user with peace of mind (i.e. no message loss) while still reducing tail
>> latency. What do you think?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dong
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Litao,
>>>
>>> Just double checking on the leader election details, do you have time to
>>> complete the proposal on that part?
>>>
>>> Also Jun mentioned one caveat related to KIP-250 on the KIP-232
>>> discussion thread that Dong is working on, I figured it is worth pointing
>>> out here with a tentative solution:
>>>
>>>
>>> ```
>>> Currently, if the producer uses acks=-1, a write will only succeed if
>>> the write is received by all in-sync replicas (i.e., committed). This
>>> is true even when min.isr is set since we first wait for a message to
>>> be committed and then check the min.isr requirement. KIP-250 may change
>>> that, but we can discuss the implication there.
>>> ```
>>>
>>> The caveat is that, if we change the acking semantics in KIP-250 that we
>>> will only requires num of {min.isr} to acknowledge a produce, then the
>>> above scenario will have a caveat: imagine you have {A, B, C} replicas of a
>>> partition with A as the leader, all in the isr list, and min.isr is 2.
>>>
>>> 1. Say there is a network partition and both A and B are fenced off. C
>>> is elected as the new leader, it shrinks its isr list to only {C}; from A's
>>> point of view it does not know it becomes the "ghost" and no longer the
>>> leader, all it does is shrinking the isr list to {A, B}.
>>>
>>> 2. At this time, any new writes with ack=-1 to C will not be acked,
>>> since from C's pov there is only one replica. This is correct.
>>>
>>> 3. However, any writes that are send to A (NOTE this is totally
>>> possible, since producers would only refresh metadata periodically,
>>> additionally if they happen to ask A or B they will get the stale metadata
>>> that A's still the leader), since A thinks that isr list is {A, B} and as
>>> long as B has replicated the message, A can acked the produce.
>>>
>>>     This is not correct behavior, since when network heals, A would
>>> realize it is not the leader and will truncate its log. And hence as a
>>> result the acked records are lost, violating Kafka's guarantees. And
>>> KIP-232 would not help preventing this scenario.
>>>
>>>
>>> Although one can argue that, with 3 replicas and min.isr set to 2, Kafka
>>> is guaranteeing to tolerate only one failure, while the above scenario is
>>> actually two concurrent failures (both A and B are considered wedged), this
>>> is still a regression to the current version.
>>>
>>> So to resolve this issue, I'd propose we can change the semantics in the
>>> following way (this is only slightly different from your proposal):
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Add one more value to client-side acks config:
>>>
>>>    0: no acks needed at all.
>>>    1: ack from the leader.
>>>    all: ack from ALL the ISR replicas AND that current number of isr
>>> replicas has to be no smaller than {min.isr} (i.e. not changing this
>>> semantic).
>>>    quorum: this is the new value, it requires ack from enough number of
>>> ISR replicas no smaller than majority of the replicas AND no smaller than
>>> {min.isr}.
>>>
>>> 2. Clarify in the docs that if a user wants to tolerate X failures, she
>>> needs to set client acks=all or acks=quorum (better tail latency than
>>> "all") with broker {min.sir} to be X+1; however, "all" is not necessarily
>>> stronger than "quorum":
>>>
>>> For example, with 3 replicas, and {min.isr} set to 2. Here is a list of
>>> scenarios:
>>>
>>> a. ISR list has 3: "all" waits for all 3, "quorum" waits for 2 of them.
>>> b. ISR list has 2: "all" and "quorum" waits for both 2 of them.
>>> c. ISR list has 1: "all" and "quorum" would not ack.
>>>
>>> If {min.isr} is set to 1, interestingly, here would be the list of
>>> scenarios:
>>>
>>> a. ISR list has 3: "all" waits for all 3, "quorum" waits for 2 of them.
>>> b. ISR list has 2: "all" and "quorum" waits for both 2 of them.
>>> c. ISR list has 1: "all" waits for leader to return, while "quorum"
>>> would not ack (because it requires that number > {min.isr}, AND >=
>>> {majority of num.replicas}, so its actually stronger than "all").
>>>
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>>
>>> Guozhang
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Litao,
>>>>
>>>> Not sure there will be an easy way to select the broker with highest LEO
>>>> without losing acknowledged message. In case it is useful, here is
>>>> another
>>>> idea. Maybe we can have a mechanism to turn switch between the min.isr
>>>> and
>>>> isr set for determining when to acknowledge a message. Controller can
>>>> probably use RPC to request the current leader to use isr set before it
>>>> sends LeaderAndIsrRequest for leadership change.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dong
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Litao Deng
>>>> <litao.d...@airbnb.com.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Thanks Jun for the detailed feedback.
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes, for #1, I mean the live replicas from the ISR.
>>>> >
>>>> > Actually, I believe for all of the 4 new leader election strategies
>>>> > (offline, reassign, preferred replica and controlled shutdown), we
>>>> need to
>>>> > make corresponding changes. Will document the details in the KIP.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > Hi, Litao,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Thanks for the KIP. Good proposal. A few comments below.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > 1. The KIP says "select the live replica with the largest LEO".  I
>>>> guess
>>>> > > what you meant is selecting the live replicas in ISR with the
>>>> largest
>>>> > LEO?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > 2. I agree that we can probably just reuse the current min.isr
>>>> > > configuration, but with a slightly different semantics. Currently,
>>>> if
>>>> > > min.isr is set, a user expects the record to be in at least min.isr
>>>> > > replicas on successful ack. This KIP guarantees this too. Most
>>>> people are
>>>> > > probably surprised that currently the ack is only sent back after
>>>> all
>>>> > > replicas in ISR receive the record. This KIP will change the ack to
>>>> only
>>>> > > wait on min.isr replicas, which matches the user's expectation and
>>>> gives
>>>> > > better latency. Currently, we guarantee no data loss if there are
>>>> fewer
>>>> > > than replication factor failures. The KIP changes that to fewer than
>>>> > > min.isr failures. The latter probably matches the user expectation.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > 3. I agree that the new leader election process is a bit more
>>>> > complicated.
>>>> > > The controller now needs to contact all replicas in ISR to
>>>> determine who
>>>> > > has the longest log. However, this happens infrequently. So, it's
>>>> > probably
>>>> > > worth doing for the better latency in #2.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > 4. We have to think through the preferred leader election process.
>>>> > > Currently, the first assigned replica is preferred for load
>>>> balancing.
>>>> > > There is a process to automatically move the leader to the preferred
>>>> > > replica when it's in sync. The issue is that the preferred replica
>>>> may no
>>>> > > be the replica with the longest log. Naively switching to the
>>>> preferred
>>>> > > replica may cause data loss when there are actually fewer failures
>>>> than
>>>> > > configured min.isr. One way to address this issue is to do the
>>>> following
>>>> > > steps during preferred leader election: (a) controller sends an RPC
>>>> > request
>>>> > > to the current leader; (b) the current leader stops taking new
>>>> writes
>>>> > > (sending a new error code to the clients) and returns its LEO (call
>>>> it L)
>>>> > > to the controller; (c) the controller issues an RPC request to the
>>>> > > preferred replica and waits its LEO to reach L; (d) the controller
>>>> > changes
>>>> > > the leader to the preferred replica.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Jun
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Litao Deng
>>>> > <litao.d...@airbnb.com.invalid
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > Sorry folks, just realized I didn't use the correct thread format
>>>> for
>>>> > the
>>>> > > > discussion. I started this new one and copied all of the
>>>> responses from
>>>> > > the
>>>> > > > old one.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > @Dong
>>>> > > > It makes sense to just use the min.insync.replicas instead of
>>>> > > introducing a
>>>> > > > new config, and we must make this change together with the
>>>> LEO-based
>>>> > new
>>>> > > > leader election.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > @Xi
>>>> > > > I thought about embedding the LEO information to the
>>>> ControllerContext,
>>>> > > > didn't find a way. Using RPC will make the leader election period
>>>> > longer
>>>> > > > and this should happen in very rare cases (broker failure,
>>>> controlled
>>>> > > > shutdown, preferred leader election and partition reassignment).
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > @Jeff
>>>> > > > The current leader election is to pick the first replica from AR
>>>> which
>>>> > > > exists both in the live brokers and ISR sets. I agree with you
>>>> about
>>>> > > > changing the current/default behavior will cause many confusions,
>>>> and
>>>> > > > that's the reason the title is "Add Support ...". In this case, we
>>>> > > wouldn't
>>>> > > > break any current promises and provide a separate option for our
>>>> user.
>>>> > > > In terms of KIP-250, I feel it is more like the "Semisynchronous
>>>> > > > Replication" in the MySQL world, and yes it is something between
>>>> acks=1
>>>> > > and
>>>> > > > acks=insync.replicas. Additionally, I feel KIP-250 and KIP-227 are
>>>> > > > two orthogonal improvements. KIP-227 is to improve the replication
>>>> > > protocol
>>>> > > > (like the introduction of parallel replication in MySQL), and
>>>> KIP-250
>>>> > is
>>>> > > an
>>>> > > > enhancement for the replication architecture (sync, semi-sync, and
>>>> > > async).
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Dong Lin
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Thanks for the KIP. I have one quick comment before you provide
>>>> more
>>>> > > > detail
>>>> > > > > on how to select the leader with the largest LEO.
>>>> > > > > Do you think it would make sense to change the default behavior
>>>> of
>>>> > > > acks=-1,
>>>> > > > > such that broker will acknowledge the message once the message
>>>> has
>>>> > been
>>>> > > > > replicated to min.insync.replicas brokers? This would allow us
>>>> to
>>>> > keep
>>>> > > > the
>>>> > > > > same durability guarantee, improve produce request latency
>>>> without
>>>> > > > having a
>>>> > > > > new config.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Hu Xi
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Currently,  with holding the assigned replicas(AR) for all
>>>> > partitions,
>>>> > > > > controller is now able to elect new leaders by selecting the
>>>> first
>>>> > > > replica
>>>> > > > > of AR which occurs in both live replica set and ISR. If
>>>> switching to
>>>> > > the
>>>> > > > > LEO-based strategy, controller context might need to be
>>>> enriched or
>>>> > > > > augmented to store those values.  If retrieving those LEOs
>>>> real-time,
>>>> > > > > several rounds of RPCs are unavoidable which seems to violate
>>>> the
>>>> > > > original
>>>> > > > > intention of this KIP.‚Äč
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Jeff Widman
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > I agree with Dong, we should see if it's possible to change the
>>>> > default
>>>> > > > > behavior so that as soon as min.insync.replicas brokers respond
>>>> than
>>>> > > the
>>>> > > > > broker acknowledges the message back to the client without
>>>> waiting
>>>> > for
>>>> > > > > additional brokers who are in the in-sync replica list to
>>>> respond. (I
>>>> > > > > actually thought it already worked this way).
>>>> > > > > As you implied in the KIP though, changing this default
>>>> introduces a
>>>> > > > weird
>>>> > > > > state where an in-sync follower broker is not guaranteed to
>>>> have a
>>>> > > > > message...
>>>> > > > > So at a minimum, the leadership failover algorithm would need
>>>> to be
>>>> > > sure
>>>> > > > to
>>>> > > > > pick the most up-to-date follower... I thought it already did
>>>> this?
>>>> > > > > But if multiple brokers fail in quick succession, then a broker
>>>> that
>>>> > > was
>>>> > > > in
>>>> > > > > the ISR could become a leader without ever receiving the
>>>> message...
>>>> > > > > violating the current promises of unclean.leader.election.
>>>> > > > enable=False...
>>>> > > > > so changing the default might be not be a tenable solution.
>>>> > > > > What also jumped out at me in the KIP was the goal of reducing
>>>> p999
>>>> > > when
>>>> > > > > setting replica lag time at 10 seconds(!!)... I understand the
>>>> desire
>>>> > > to
>>>> > > > > minimize frequent ISR shrink/expansion, as I face this same
>>>> issue at
>>>> > my
>>>> > > > day
>>>> > > > > job. But what you're essentially trying to do here is create an
>>>> > > > additional
>>>> > > > > replication state that is in-between acks=1 and acks = ISR to
>>>> paper
>>>> > > over
>>>> > > > a
>>>> > > > > root problem of ISR shrink/expansion...
>>>> > > > > I'm just wary of shipping more features (and more operational
>>>> > > confusion)
>>>> > > > if
>>>> > > > > it's only addressing the symptom rather than the root cause. For
>>>> > > example,
>>>> > > > > my day job's problem is we run a very high number of low-traffic
>>>> > > > > partitions-per-broker, so the fetch requests hit many partitions
>>>> > before
>>>> > > > > they fill. Solving that requires changing our architecture +
>>>> making
>>>> > the
>>>> > > > > replication protocol more efficient (KIP-227).
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Litao Deng <
>>>> litao.d...@airbnb.com>
>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Hey folks. I would like to add a feature to support the
>>>> quorum-based
>>>> > > > > acknowledgment for the producer request. We have been running a
>>>> > > modified
>>>> > > > > version of Kafka on our testing cluster for weeks, the
>>>> improvement of
>>>> > > > P999
>>>> > > > > is significant with very stable latency. Additionally, I have a
>>>> > > proposal
>>>> > > > to
>>>> > > > > achieve a similar data durability as with the
>>>> insync.replicas-based
>>>> > > > > acknowledgment through LEO-based leader election.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>>>> > > > > 250+Add+Support+for+Quorum-based+Producer+Acknowledge
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -- Guozhang
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>

Reply via email to