[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-12495?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17303906#comment-17303906
]
Luke Chen commented on KAFKA-12495:
-----------------------------------
[~ramkrish1489], thanks for your comments. However, this issue is still there
after this patch. As I described, it's that the algorithm didn't consider the
member count not the same as previous revocation round. It's not related to the
issue in KAFKA-10413.
Or we can say, you found 2 issues in KAFKA-10413, and I found one more issue in
this ticket, which all will cause uneven distribution.
Please help review my PR after I completed it. Thank you.
> Unbalanced connectors/tasks distribution will happen in Connect's incremental
> cooperative assignor
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-12495
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-12495
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Luke Chen
> Assignee: Luke Chen
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: image-2021-03-18-15-04-57-854.png,
> image-2021-03-18-15-05-52-557.png, image-2021-03-18-15-07-27-103.png
>
>
> In Kafka Connect, we implement incremental cooperative rebalance algorithm
> based on KIP-415
> ([https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-415%3A+Incremental+Cooperative+Rebalancing+in+Kafka+Connect)|https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-415%3A+Incremental+Cooperative+Rebalancing+in+Kafka+Connect].
> However, we have a bad assumption in the algorithm implementation, which is:
> after revoking rebalance completed, the member(worker) count will be the same
> as the previous round of reblance.
>
> Let's take a look at the example in the KIP-415:
> !image-2021-03-18-15-07-27-103.png|width=441,height=556!
> It works well for most cases. But what if W3 left after 1st rebalance
> completed and before 2nd rebalance started? Let's see what will happened?
> Let's see this example: (we'll use 10 tasks here):
>
> {code:java}
> Initial group and assignment: W1([AC0, AT1, AT2, AT3, AT4, AT5, BC0, BT1,
> BT2, BT4, BT4, BT5])
> Config topic contains: AC0, AT1, AT2, AT3, AT4, AT5, BC0, BT1, BT2, BT4, BT4,
> BT5
> W1 is current leader
> W2 joins with assignment: []
> Rebalance is triggered
> W3 joins while rebalance is still active with assignment: []
> W1 joins with assignment: [AC0, AT1, AT2, AT3, AT4, AT5, BC0, BT1, BT2, BT4,
> BT4, BT5]
> W1 becomes leader
> W1 computes and sends assignments:
> W1(delay: 0, assigned: [AC0, AT1, AT2, AT3], revoked: [AT4, AT5, BC0, BT1,
> BT2, BT4, BT4, BT5])
> W2(delay: 0, assigned: [], revoked: [])
> W3(delay: 0, assigned: [], revoked: [])
> W1 stops revoked resources
> W1 rejoins with assignment: [AC0, AT1, AT2, AT3]
> Rebalance is triggered
> W2 joins with assignment: []
> // W3 is down
> W3 doesn't join
> W1 becomes leader
> W1 computes and sends assignments:
> // We assigned all the previous revoked Connectors/Tasks to the new member,
> which cause unbalanced distribution
> W1(delay: 0, assigned: [AC0, AT1, AT2, AT3], revoked: [])
> W2(delay: 0, assigned: [AT4, AT5, BC0, BT1, BT2, BT4, BT4, BT5], revoked: [])
> {code}
> We cannot assume the member count after keeps the same right after revocation.
>
> Note: The consumer's cooperative sticky assignor won't have this issue since
> we re-compute the assignment in each round.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
