[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-21090?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=18114991#comment-18114991
]
sanghyeok An commented on KAFKA-21090:
--------------------------------------
[~mjsax]
Hi, No one is actively working on this, may I take a look?
> Improve in-memory state store re-use during a rebalance.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-21090
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-21090
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: streams
> Reporter: Matthias J. Sax
> Priority: Major
> Labels: needs-kip
>
> While working on warm-up task support for "streams" group, in particular the
> new refiner step, I stumbled upon the issue, that two members (StreamsThread)
> of the same process/client/instance, cannot hand over tasks to each other
> directly, but the old owner needs to close the task (dropping in-memory
> state) before the new owner can take over (and now needs to rebuild the state
> from the changelog topic). – We only support direct active/standby/warmup
> task _conversion_ (which is technically a revoke+grant of the same task of a
> different type) which preserve in-memory state stores.
> While we would expect that the task-assignor tries to assign a task to its
> previous owner (if it already decided to place a task on the same process),
> it cannot be guaranteed.
> We should consider to allow a client to hand over a task from
> thread-to-thread w/o the need to close it. Ie, the previous owner could
> "suspend" the task only, preserving the in-memory state store while acking
> the revocation back to the broker afterwards, allowing the broker to grant
> the task to the sibling member afterwards, which can get the suspended task
> from the old owner, and "resume" it.
> We would need some protocol changes to add metadata to a "revoke task"
> instruction to allow a member to distinguish a "full revocation" (what we
> implement now), vs a "suspend revocation". On a grant, a member would always
> check if there is a suspended task it can take over, and only create a new
> one if no suspended task is available.
> [Side note: we should also apply some cleanup/timeout on "suspended" task,
> and close them, to free up the memory, if they are not re-claimed in a timely
> manner – similar to existing task-cleanup-interval [maybe we could even
> re-use the exact same config?])
> It might also be beneficial, to add persistent vs in-memory state store
> information to the "topology metadata/description" sent to the broker, allow
> the refiner (and maybe also the assignor?) to make smarter decisions about
> task placement, and warm-up task injection etc.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
