Brett, Yes, I will post PR tomorrow.
Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 6:28 PM Brett Rann <br...@zendesk.com.invalid> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) from me on the interface. I'd like to see someone familiar > with > the code comment on the approach, and note there's a couple of different > approaches: what's documented in the KIP, and what Xiaohe Dong was working > on > here: > > https://github.com/dongxiaohe/kafka/tree/dongxiaohe/log-cleaner-compaction-max-lifetime-2.0 > > If you have code working already Xiongqi Wu could you share a PR? I'd be > happy > to start testing. > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 5:57 AM xiongqi wu <xiongq...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > Do you have any additional comments on this KIP? > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 9:17 PM, xiongqi wu <xiongq...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > on 2) > > > The offsetmap is built starting from dirty segment. > > > The compaction starts from the beginning of the log partition. That's > how > > > it ensure the deletion of tomb keys. > > > I will double check tomorrow. > > > > > > Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 6:46 PM Brett Rann <br...@zendesk.com.invalid> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> To just clarify a bit on 1. whether there's an external storage/DB > isn't > > >> relevant here. > > >> Compacted topics allow a tombstone record to be sent (a null value > for a > > >> key) which > > >> currently will result in old values for that key being deleted if some > > >> conditions are met. > > >> There are existing controls to make sure the old values will stay > around > > >> for a minimum > > >> time at least, but no dedicated control to ensure the tombstone will > > >> delete > > >> within a > > >> maximum time. > > >> > > >> One popular reason that maximum time for deletion is desirable right > now > > >> is > > >> GDPR with > > >> PII. But we're not proposing any GDPR awareness in kafka, just being > > able > > >> to guarantee > > >> a max time where a tombstoned key will be removed from the compacted > > >> topic. > > >> > > >> on 2) > > >> huh, i thought it kept track of the first dirty segment and didn't > > >> recompact older "clean" ones. > > >> But I didn't look at code or test for that. > > >> > > >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 10:57 AM xiongqi wu <xiongq...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > 1, Owner of data (in this sense, kafka is the not the owner of data) > > >> > should keep track of lifecycle of the data in some external > > storage/DB. > > >> > The owner determines when to delete the data and send the delete > > >> request to > > >> > kafka. Kafka doesn't know about the content of data but to provide a > > >> mean > > >> > for deletion. > > >> > > > >> > 2 , each time compaction runs, it will start from first segments (no > > >> > matter if it is compacted or not). The time estimation here is only > > used > > >> > to determine whether we should run compaction on this log partition. > > So > > >> we > > >> > only need to estimate uncompacted segments. > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hey Xiongqi, > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks for the update. I have two questions for the latest KIP. > > >> > > > > >> > > 1) The motivation section says that one use case is to delete PII > > >> > (Personal > > >> > > Identifiable information) data within 7 days while keeping non-PII > > >> > > indefinitely in compacted format. I suppose the use-case depends > on > > >> the > > >> > > application to determine when to delete those PII data. Could you > > >> explain > > >> > > how can application reliably determine the set of keys that should > > be > > >> > > deleted? Is application required to always messages from the topic > > >> after > > >> > > every restart and determine the keys to be deleted by looking at > > >> message > > >> > > timestamp, or is application supposed to persist the key-> > timstamp > > >> > > information in a separate persistent storage system? > > >> > > > > >> > > 2) It is mentioned in the KIP that "we only need to estimate > > earliest > > >> > > message timestamp for un-compacted log segments because the > deletion > > >> > > requests that belong to compacted segments have already been > > >> processed". > > >> > > Not sure if it is correct. If a segment is compacted before user > > sends > > >> > > message to delete a key in this segment, it seems that we still > need > > >> to > > >> > > ensure that the segment will be compacted again within the given > > time > > >> > after > > >> > > the deletion is requested, right? > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > Dong > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 10:27 AM, xiongqi wu <xiongq...@gmail.com > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi Xiaohe, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Quick note: > > >> > > > 1) Use minimum of segment.ms and max.compaction.lag.ms > > >> > > > <http://max.compaction.ms > > <http://max.compaction.ms> > > >> > <http://max.compaction.ms > > <http://max.compaction.ms>>> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 2) I am not sure if I get your second question. first, we have > > >> jitter > > >> > > when > > >> > > > we roll the active segment. second, on each compaction, we > compact > > >> upto > > >> > > > the offsetmap could allow. Those will not lead to perfect > > compaction > > >> > > storm > > >> > > > overtime. In addition, I expect we are setting > > >> max.compaction.lag.ms > > >> > on > > >> > > > the order of days. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 3) I don't have access to the confluent community slack for > now. I > > >> am > > >> > > > reachable via the google handle out. > > >> > > > To avoid the double effort, here is my plan: > > >> > > > a) Collect more feedback and feature requriement on the KIP. > > >> > > > b) Wait unitl this KIP is approved. > > >> > > > c) I will address any additional requirements in the > > implementation. > > >> > (My > > >> > > > current implementation only complies to whatever described in > the > > >> KIP > > >> > > now) > > >> > > > d) I can share the code with the you and community see you want > to > > >> add > > >> > > > anything. > > >> > > > e) submission through committee > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:42 PM, XIAOHE DONG < > > >> dannyriv...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Hi Xiongqi > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for thinking about implementing this as well. :) > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I was thinking about using `segment.ms` to trigger the > segment > > >> roll. > > >> > > > > Also, its value can be the largest time bias for the record > > >> deletion. > > >> > > For > > >> > > > > example, if the `segment.ms` is 1 day and `max.compaction.ms` > > is > > >> 30 > > >> > > > days, > > >> > > > > the compaction may happen around 31 days. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > For my curiosity, is there a way we can do some performance > test > > >> for > > >> > > this > > >> > > > > and any tools you can recommend. As you know, previously, it > is > > >> > cleaned > > >> > > > up > > >> > > > > by respecting dirty ratio, but now it may happen anytime if > max > > >> lag > > >> > has > > >> > > > > passed for each message. I wonder what would happen if clients > > >> send > > >> > > huge > > >> > > > > amount of tombstone records at the same time. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I am looking forward to have a quick chat with you to avoid > > double > > >> > > effort > > >> > > > > on this. I am in confluent community slack during the work > time. > > >> My > > >> > > name > > >> > > > is > > >> > > > > Xiaohe Dong. :) > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Rgds > > >> > > > > Xiaohe Dong > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On 2018/08/16 01:22:22, xiongqi wu <xiongq...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > Brett, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you for your comments. > > >> > > > > > I was thinking since we already has immediate compaction > > >> setting by > > >> > > > > setting > > >> > > > > > min dirty ratio to 0, so I decide to use "0" as disabled > > state. > > >> > > > > > I am ok to go with -1(disable), 0 (immediate) options. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > For the implementation, there are a few differences between > > mine > > >> > and > > >> > > > > > "Xiaohe Dong"'s : > > >> > > > > > 1) I used the estimated creation time of a log segment > instead > > >> of > > >> > > > largest > > >> > > > > > timestamp of a log to determine the compaction eligibility, > > >> > because a > > >> > > > log > > >> > > > > > segment might stay as an active segment up to "max > compaction > > >> lag". > > >> > > > (see > > >> > > > > > the KIP for detail). > > >> > > > > > 2) I measure how much bytes that we must clean to follow the > > >> "max > > >> > > > > > compaction lag" rule, and use that to determine the order of > > >> > > > compaction. > > >> > > > > > 3) force active segment to roll to follow the "max > compaction > > >> lag" > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I can share my code so we can coordinate. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I haven't think about a new API to force a compaction. what > is > > >> the > > >> > > use > > >> > > > > case > > >> > > > > > for this one? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Brett Rann > > >> > > <br...@zendesk.com.invalid > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > We've been looking into this too. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Mailing list: > > >> > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/> > > >> > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/>> > > >> > > ed7f6a6589f94e8c2a705553f364ef > > >> > > > > > > 599cb6915e4c3ba9b561e610e4@%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E > > >> > > > > > > jira wish: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7137 > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7137> > > >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7137 > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7137>> > > >> > > > > > > confluent slack discussion: > > >> > > > > > > https://confluentcommunity.slack.com/archives/C49R61XMM/ > > <https://confluentcommunity.slack.com/archives/C49R61XMM/> > > >> > <https://confluentcommunity.slack.com/archives/C49R61XMM/ > > <https://confluentcommunity.slack.com/archives/C49R61XMM/>> > > >> > > > > p1530760121000039 > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > A person on my team has started on code so you might want > to > > >> > > > > coordinate: > > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/dongxiaohe/kafka/tree/dongxiaohe/log- > > <https://github.com/dongxiaohe/kafka/tree/dongxiaohe/log-> > > >> > <https://github.com/dongxiaohe/kafka/tree/dongxiaohe/log- > > <https://github.com/dongxiaohe/kafka/tree/dongxiaohe/log->> > > >> > > > > > > cleaner-compaction-max-lifetime-2.0 > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > He's been working with Jason Gustafson and James Chen > around > > >> the > > >> > > > > changes. > > >> > > > > > > You can ping him on confluent slack as Xiaohe Dong. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > It's great to know others are thinking on it as well. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > You've added the requirement to force a segment roll which > > we > > >> > > hadn't > > >> > > > > gotten > > >> > > > > > > to yet, which is great. I was content with it not > including > > >> the > > >> > > > active > > >> > > > > > > segment. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Adding topic level configuration "max.compaction.lag.ms > ", > > >> and > > >> > > > > > > corresponding broker configuration " > > >> > log.cleaner.max.compaction.la > > >> > > > g.ms > > >> > > > > ", > > >> > > > > > > which is set to 0 (disabled) by default. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Glancing at some other settings convention seems to me to > be > > >> -1 > > >> > for > > >> > > > > > > disabled (or infinite, which is more meaningful here). 0 > to > > me > > >> > > > implies > > >> > > > > > > instant, a little quicker than 1. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > We've been trying to think about a way to trigger > compaction > > >> as > > >> > > well > > >> > > > > > > through an API call, which would need to be flagged > > somewhere > > >> (ZK > > >> > > > > admin/ > > >> > > > > > > space?) but we're struggling to think how that would be > > >> > coordinated > > >> > > > > across > > >> > > > > > > brokers and partitions. Have you given any thought to > that? > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 8:44 AM xiongqi wu < > > >> xiongq...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Eno, Dong, > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I have updated the KIP. We decide not to address the > issue > > >> that > > >> > > we > > >> > > > > might > > >> > > > > > > > have for both compaction and time retention enabled > topics > > >> (see > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > > > rejected alternative item 2). This KIP will only ensure > > log > > >> can > > >> > > be > > >> > > > > > > > compacted after a specified time-interval. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > As suggested by Dong, we will also enforce " > > >> > > max.compaction.lag.ms" > > >> > > > > is > > >> > > > > > > not > > >> > > > > > > > less than "min.compaction.lag.ms". > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-354 > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-354> > > >> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-354 > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-354>> > > >> > > > > Time-based > > >> > > > > > > log > > >> > > > > > > > compaction policy > > >> > > > > > > > < > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-354 > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-354> > > >> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-354 > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-354>> > > >> > > > > Time-based > > >> > > > > > > log compaction policy> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 5:01 PM, xiongqi wu < > > >> > xiongq...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Per discussion with Dong, he made a very good point > that > > >> if > > >> > > > > compaction > > >> > > > > > > > > and time based retention are both enabled on a topic, > > the > > >> > > > > compaction > > >> > > > > > > > might > > >> > > > > > > > > prevent records from being deleted on time. The reason > > is > > >> > when > > >> > > > > > > compacting > > >> > > > > > > > > multiple segments into one single segment, the newly > > >> created > > >> > > > > segment > > >> > > > > > > will > > >> > > > > > > > > have same lastmodified timestamp as latest original > > >> segment. > > >> > We > > >> > > > > lose > > >> > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > timestamp of all original segments except the last > one. > > >> As a > > >> > > > > result, > > >> > > > > > > > > records might not be deleted as it should be through > > time > > >> > based > > >> > > > > > > > retention. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > With the current KIP proposal, if we want to ensure > > timely > > >> > > > > deletion, we > > >> > > > > > > > > have the following configurations: > > >> > > > > > > > > 1) enable time based log compaction only : deletion is > > >> done > > >> > > > though > > >> > > > > > > > > overriding the same key > > >> > > > > > > > > 2) enable time based log retention only: deletion is > > done > > >> > > though > > >> > > > > > > > > time-based retention > > >> > > > > > > > > 3) enable both log compaction and time based > retention: > > >> > > Deletion > > >> > > > > is not > > >> > > > > > > > > guaranteed. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Not sure if we have use case 3 and also want deletion > to > > >> > happen > > >> > > > on > > >> > > > > > > time. > > >> > > > > > > > > There are several options to address deletion issue > when > > >> > enable > > >> > > > > both > > >> > > > > > > > > compaction and retention: > > >> > > > > > > > > A) During log compaction, looking into record > timestamp > > to > > >> > > delete > > >> > > > > > > expired > > >> > > > > > > > > records. This can be done in compaction logic itself > or > > >> use > > >> > > > > > > > > AdminClient.deleteRecords() . But this assumes we have > > >> record > > >> > > > > > > timestamp. > > >> > > > > > > > > B) retain the lastModifed time of original segments > > during > > >> > log > > >> > > > > > > > compaction. > > >> > > > > > > > > This requires extra meta data to record the > information > > or > > >> > not > > >> > > > > grouping > > >> > > > > > > > > multiple segments into one during compaction. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If we have use case 3 in general, I would prefer > > solution > > >> A > > >> > and > > >> > > > > rely on > > >> > > > > > > > > record timestamp. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Two questions: > > >> > > > > > > > > Do we have use case 3? Is it nice to have or must > have? > > >> > > > > > > > > If we have use case 3 and want to go with solution A, > > >> should > > >> > we > > >> > > > > > > introduce > > >> > > > > > > > > a new configuration to enforce deletion by timestamp? > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 1:52 PM, xiongqi wu < > > >> > > xiongq...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Dong, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> Thanks for the comment. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> There are two retention policy: log compaction and > time > > >> > based > > >> > > > > > > retention. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> Log compaction: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> we have use cases to keep infinite retention of a > topic > > >> > (only > > >> > > > > > > > >> compaction). GDPR cares about deletion of PII > (personal > > >> > > > > identifiable > > >> > > > > > > > >> information) data. > > >> > > > > > > > >> Since Kafka doesn't know what records contain PII, it > > >> relies > > >> > > on > > >> > > > > upper > > >> > > > > > > > >> layer to delete those records. > > >> > > > > > > > >> For those infinite retention uses uses, kafka needs > to > > >> > > provide a > > >> > > > > way > > >> > > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > >> enforce compaction on time. This is what we try to > > >> address > > >> > in > > >> > > > this > > >> > > > > > > KIP. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> Time based retention, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> There are also use cases that users of Kafka might > want > > >> to > > >> > > > expire > > >> > > > > all > > >> > > > > > > > >> their data. > > >> > > > > > > > >> In those cases, they can use time based retention of > > >> their > > >> > > > topics. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> Regarding your first question, if a user wants to > > delete > > >> a > > >> > key > > >> > > > in > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> log compaction topic, the user has to send a deletion > > >> using > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > same > > >> > > > > > > > key. > > >> > > > > > > > >> Kafka only makes sure the deletion will happen under > a > > >> > certain > > >> > > > > time > > >> > > > > > > > >> periods (like 2 days/7 days). > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> Regarding your second question. In most cases, we > might > > >> want > > >> > > to > > >> > > > > delete > > >> > > > > > > > >> all duplicated keys at the same time. > > >> > > > > > > > >> Compaction might be more efficient since we need to > > scan > > >> the > > >> > > log > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > > find > > >> > > > > > > > >> all duplicates. However, the expected use case is to > > set > > >> the > > >> > > > time > > >> > > > > > > based > > >> > > > > > > > >> compaction interval on the order of days, and be > larger > > >> than > > >> > > > 'min > > >> > > > > > > > >> compaction lag". We don't want log compaction to > happen > > >> > > > frequently > > >> > > > > > > since > > >> > > > > > > > >> it is expensive. The purpose is to help low > production > > >> rate > > >> > > > topic > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > get > > >> > > > > > > > >> compacted on time. For the topic with "normal" > incoming > > >> > > message > > >> > > > > > > message > > >> > > > > > > > >> rate, the "min dirty ratio" might have triggered the > > >> > > compaction > > >> > > > > before > > >> > > > > > > > this > > >> > > > > > > > >> time based compaction policy takes effect. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> Eno, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> For your question, like I mentioned we have long time > > >> > > retention > > >> > > > > use > > >> > > > > > > case > > >> > > > > > > > >> for log compacted topic, but we want to provide > ability > > >> to > > >> > > > delete > > >> > > > > > > > certain > > >> > > > > > > > >> PII records on time. > > >> > > > > > > > >> Kafka itself doesn't know whether a record contains > > >> > sensitive > > >> > > > > > > > information > > >> > > > > > > > >> and relies on the user for deletion. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 6:58 PM, Dong Lin < > > >> > > lindon...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> Hey Xiongqi, > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> Thanks for the KIP. I have two questions regarding > the > > >> > > use-case > > >> > > > > for > > >> > > > > > > > >>> meeting > > >> > > > > > > > >>> GDPR requirement. > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> 1) If I recall correctly, one of the GDPR > requirement > > is > > >> > that > > >> > > > we > > >> > > > > can > > >> > > > > > > > not > > >> > > > > > > > >>> keep messages longer than e.g. 30 days in storage > > (e.g. > > >> > > Kafka). > > >> > > > > Say > > >> > > > > > > > there > > >> > > > > > > > >>> exists a partition p0 which contains message1 with > > key1 > > >> and > > >> > > > > message2 > > >> > > > > > > > with > > >> > > > > > > > >>> key2. And then user keeps producing messages with > > >> key=key2 > > >> > to > > >> > > > > this > > >> > > > > > > > >>> partition. Since message1 with key1 is never > > overridden, > > >> > > sooner > > >> > > > > or > > >> > > > > > > > later > > >> > > > > > > > >>> we > > >> > > > > > > > >>> will want to delete message1 and keep the latest > > message > > >> > with > > >> > > > > > > key=key2. > > >> > > > > > > > >>> But > > >> > > > > > > > >>> currently it looks like log compact logic in Kafka > > will > > >> > > always > > >> > > > > put > > >> > > > > > > > these > > >> > > > > > > > >>> messages in the same segment. Will this be an issue? > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> 2) The current KIP intends to provide the capability > > to > > >> > > delete > > >> > > > a > > >> > > > > > > given > > >> > > > > > > > >>> message in log compacted topic. Does such use-case > > also > > >> > > require > > >> > > > > Kafka > > >> > > > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > >>> keep the messages produced before the given message? > > If > > >> > yes, > > >> > > > > then we > > >> > > > > > > > can > > >> > > > > > > > >>> probably just use AdminClient.deleteRecords() or > > >> time-based > > >> > > log > > >> > > > > > > > retention > > >> > > > > > > > >>> to meet the use-case requirement. If no, do you know > > >> what > > >> > is > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > > GDPR's > > >> > > > > > > > >>> requirement on time-to-deletion after user > explicitly > > >> > > requests > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >>> deletion > > >> > > > > > > > >>> (e.g. 1 hour, 1 day, 7 day)? > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> Thanks, > > >> > > > > > > > >>> Dong > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:44 PM, xiongqi wu < > > >> > > > xiongq...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > Hi Eno, > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > The GDPR request we are getting here at linkedin > is > > >> if we > > >> > > > get a > > >> > > > > > > > >>> request to > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > delete a record through a null key on a log > > compacted > > >> > > topic, > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > we want to delete the record via compaction in a > > given > > >> > time > > >> > > > > period > > >> > > > > > > > >>> like 2 > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > days (whatever is required by the policy). > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > There might be other issues (such as orphan log > > >> segments > > >> > > > under > > >> > > > > > > > certain > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > conditions) that lead to GDPR problem but they are > > >> more > > >> > > like > > >> > > > > > > > >>> something we > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > need to fix anyway regardless of GDPR. > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > -- Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Eno Thereska < > > >> > > > > > > > eno.there...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > Hello, > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > Thanks for the KIP. I'd like to see a more > precise > > >> > > > > definition of > > >> > > > > > > > what > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > part > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > of GDPR you are targeting as well as some sort > of > > >> > > > > verification > > >> > > > > > > that > > >> > > > > > > > >>> this > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > KIP actually addresses the problem. Right now I > > find > > >> > > this a > > >> > > > > bit > > >> > > > > > > > >>> vague: > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > "Ability to delete a log message through > > compaction > > >> in > > >> > a > > >> > > > > timely > > >> > > > > > > > >>> manner > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > has > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > become an important requirement in some use > cases > > >> > (e.g., > > >> > > > > GDPR)" > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > Is there any guarantee that after this KIP the > > GDPR > > >> > > problem > > >> > > > > is > > >> > > > > > > > >>> solved or > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > do > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > we need to do something else as well, e.g., more > > >> KIPs? > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > Thanks > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > Eno > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:18 PM, xiongqi wu < > > >> > > > > xiongq...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Kafka, > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > This KIP tries to address GDPR concern to > > fulfill > > >> > > > deletion > > >> > > > > > > > request > > >> > > > > > > > >>> on > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > time > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > through time-based log compaction on a > > compaction > > >> > > enabled > > >> > > > > > > topic: > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-> > > >> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP->> > > >> > > > > > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-> > > >> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP->>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > 354%3A+Time-based+log+compaction+policy > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > Any feedback will be appreciated. > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> -- > > >> > > > > > > > >> Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > >> > > > > > > > > Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > >> > > > > > > > Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -- > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Brett Rann > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Senior DevOps Engineer > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Zendesk International Ltd > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 395 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Mobile: +61 (0) 418 826 017 > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > -- > > >> > > > > > Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Brett Rann > > >> > > >> Senior DevOps Engineer > > >> > > >> > > >> Zendesk International Ltd > > >> > > >> 395 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia > > >> > > >> Mobile: +61 (0) 418 826 017 > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu > > > > > -- > > Brett Rann > > Senior DevOps Engineer > > > Zendesk International Ltd > > 395 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia > > Mobile: +61 (0) 418 826 017 >
