Folks. Thanks for all of the good discussions.

Here are a few of my thoughts:

   1. we won't change any existing semantics. That means, besides acks '-1
   (all)', '0', '1', we will introduce a separate 'quorum' and document the
   semantic. 'quorum' is a totally different view of our replication protocol
   for the sake of better tail (P999) latency. I will advertise don't compare
   'quorum' with '-1 (all)' and any other existing values.
   2. in terms of the controller functionality, I admit there are many
   awesome consensus protocols; however, for this specific KIP, I choose to
   minimize the impact/change on the controller code path.
      - we will keep the current controller's overall design and
      implementation by NOT introducing any consensus protocol.
      - we will introduce a topic level config "enable.quorum.acks"
      (default to false), and only accept acks='quorum' produce requests while
      the corresponding topic enabled this config. In this case, during the new
      leader election, we will only use the new LEO-based new leader
election for
      the topics turned the "enable.quorum.acks" on. In this case, we only do
      LEO-based new leader election for the topics needed, and other
topics won't
      pay the penalty.

One requirement for this KIP is fully semantic backward compatible and
pay-as-you-go for the complexity of controller (longer new leader election
latency).

Thoughts?

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Tao,
>
> No I was not proposing to change the mechanism of acks=all, and only
> mentioning that today even with acks=all the tolerance of failures is
> theoretically still bounded by min.isr settings though we do require all
> replicas in ISR (which may be larger than min.isr) to replicate before
> responding; this is what Jun mentioned may surprise many users today. I
> think with an additional "acks=quorum" can help resolve this, by requiring
> the num.acks >= majority (to make sure consistency is guaranteed with at
> most (X-1) / 2 failures with X number of replicas) AND num.acks >= min.isr
> (to specify if we want tolerate more failures than (X-1) / 2).
>
> The question then is, whether acks=all is still useful with introduced
> "quorum": if it is not, we can just replace the current semantics of "all"
> and document it. The example that we gave above, demonstrate that
> "acks=all" itself may still be useful even with the introduction of
> "quorum" since that scenario can be avoided by acks=all, but not
> acks=quorum as it requires ALL ISR replicas to replicate even if that
> number is larger than {min.isr} and also larger than the majority number
> (and if A is trying to shrink its ISR from {A,B,C} to {A,B} it will fail
> the ZK write since epoch has been incremented). Hence my proposal is to add
> a new config than replacing current semantics of "all".
>
>
> Guozhang
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 2:45 AM, tao xiao <xiaotao...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Guozhang,
> >
> > Are you proposing changing semantic of ack=all to acknowledge message
> only
> > after all replicas (not all ISRs, which is what Kafka currently is doing)
> > have committed the message? This is equivalent to setting min.isr=number
> of
> > replicas, which makes ack=all much stricter than what Kafka has right
> now.
> > I think this may introduce surprise to users too as producer will not
> > succeed in producing a message to Kafka when one of the followers is down
> >
> > On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 at 15:26 Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Dong,
> > >
> > > Could you elaborate a bit more how controller could affect leaders to
> > > switch between all and quorum?
> > >
> > >
> > > Guozhang
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- Guozhang
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>

Reply via email to