Github user srdo commented on a diff in the pull request:
    --- Diff: 
    @@ -479,16 +487,17 @@ public OffsetAndMetadata findNextCommitOffset() {
                 KafkaSpoutMessageId nextCommitMsg = null;     // this is a 
convenience variable to make it faster to create OffsetAndMetadata
                 for (KafkaSpoutMessageId currAckedMsg : ackedMsgs) {  // 
complexity is that of a linear scan on a TreeMap
    -                if ((currOffset = currAckedMsg.offset()) == 
initialFetchOffset || currOffset == nextCommitOffset + 1) {            // found 
the next offset to commit
    +                if ((currOffset = currAckedMsg.offset()) == 
nextCommitOffset + 1) {            // found the next offset to commit
                         found = true;
                         nextCommitMsg = currAckedMsg;
                         nextCommitOffset = currOffset;
                     } else if (currAckedMsg.offset() > nextCommitOffset + 1) { 
   // offset found is not continuous to the offsets listed to go in the next 
commit, so stop search
                         LOG.debug("topic-partition [{}] has non-continuous 
offset [{}]. It will be processed in a subsequent batch.", tp, currOffset);
                     } else {
    -                    LOG.debug("topic-partition [{}] has unexpected offset 
[{}].", tp, currOffset);
    -                    break;
    +                    //Received a redundant ack. Ignore and continue 
    --- End diff --
    Feel free to correct me, but it's my impression that Storm doesn't really 
support double acking. If a bolt acks the same tuple multiple times, I think 
Storm ends up failing the tuple tree. Have you seen double acking occur from 
Storm's side?

If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.

Reply via email to