Thank you very much for your feedback.
I've shared my thoughts on these three alternatives in
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/25706#issuecomment-4398007309,
and I look forward to more input from the community.

Thanks,
xiangying meng

On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 7:21 PM Lari Hotari <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There's a follow-up discussion on the PIP PR: 
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/25706. I've shared a detailed write-up 
> in https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/25706#issuecomment-4396605560.
>
> It would be valuable to gather more thought and additional perspectives on 
> the various options for solving the problem stated in PIP-474 before we 
> decide on the final solution.
>
> -Lari
>
> On 2026/05/07 07:42:29 Lari Hotari wrote:
> > Thanks for bringing up a real problem and driving the work to solve this 
> > issue.
> >
> > I'd suggest analyzing 3 alternative designs before deciding on the solution.
> >
> > Alternative 1:
> > I'd suggest looking into an alternative design that achieves the same 
> > outcome of allowing the subscription cursor to advance. Instead of making 
> > copies of the messages, an alternative design would be to create another 
> > subscription to track the slow or hot keys. Essentially, the design could 
> > be very similar to diverting to the overflow managed ledger, but there 
> > wouldn't be a need to duplicate the data and get into a situation where 
> > different failure modes cause unnecessary complications.
> >
> > Alternative 2:
> > Simply optimize the replay queue solution together with improving the 
> > scalability of individualDeletedMessages so that it scales to 1,000,000 ack 
> > holes and beyond. This would result in the simplest solution, which would 
> > cover most use cases. There are multiple benefits to keeping the solution 
> > simple. For example, backlog management doesn't change.
> >
> > Together with the PIP-430 broker cache (since 4.1.0), the replay queue 
> > solution already avoids most unnecessary BK reads when the broker cache is 
> > sufficiently tuned for high-scale use cases. The PIP-430 broker cache could 
> > be improved further to achieve high cache hit rates if it turns out to be a 
> > problem.
> >
> > Alternative 3:
> > The client-side code could simply route to a separate topic on its own when 
> > it detects a hot key and acknowledge the original message.
> >
> > Regarding Alternative 2, I believe that individualDeletedMessages can 
> > already scale to 1,000,000 ack holes and beyond when the broker is properly 
> > configured. It could be tested with this type of configuration:
> >
> > managedLedgerMaxUnackedRangesToPersist=1000000
> > managedLedgerMaxBatchDeletedIndexToPersist=1000000
> > managedLedgerPersistIndividualAckAsLongArray=true
> > managedCursorInfoCompressionType=LZ4
> > managedLedgerInfoCompressionType=LZ4
> >
> > (The last config is unrelated, but it makes sense to also switch to using 
> > compression.)
> >
> > I hope you could also analyze these alternatives before we proceed with 
> > making the decision on solving the hot (or slow) key problem. Thank you for 
> > focusing on solving this problem!
> >
> > -Lari
> >
> > On 2026/05/07 05:18:35 xiangying meng wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'd like to propose PIP-474: Key_Shared Hot Key Overflow Mechanism.
> > >
> > > Key_Shared is Pulsar's only built-in solution for parallel consumption
> > > with per-key ordering. But it has a critical production issue: a
> > > single stuck consumer can starve ALL other keys across ALL partitions
> > > within minutes, due to the containsStickyKeyHash ordering check
> > > flooding the Replay queue.
> > >
> > > This becomes especially urgent as AI inference workloads adopt MQ as
> > > their transport layer — slow consumption (seconds per request) plus
> > > strict per-key ordering is exactly what Key_Shared is designed for,
> > > yet the hot-key starvation bug makes it unusable in production.
> > >
> > > PIP-474 proposes diverting hot-key messages to an independent Overflow
> > > ManagedLedger, unblocking Normal Read and mark-delete advancement
> > > while preserving at-least-once delivery and per-key ordering. Zero
> > > overhead when no hot keys are present.
> > >
> > > PIP: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/25706
> > >
> > > Feedback welcome.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Xiangying Meng
> > >
> >

Reply via email to