Github user koeninger commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/17774
Have you read the function def clamp?
Rate limit of 1 should not imply an attempt to grab 1 message even if it
doesn't exist.
On Apr 27, 2017 11:01, "Sebastian Arzt" <[email protected]> wrote:
> @koeninger <https://github.com/koeninger> I agree that assuming a long
> batch size is wrong, not sure whether it even matters.
> But what if for one partition there is no lack in the current batch? Then
> fetching 1 message for this partition from kafka, is you suggest, would
> fail. So here zero makes sense in my eyes. This is also the old behaviour
> if rate > 1 and lag == 0 here
>
<https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/external/kafka-0-8/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/streaming/kafka/DirectKafkaInputDStream.scala#L107>
> .
> Further, I think that truncating 0.99 to 0 messages per partition is also
> the right thing to do, as one cannot be sure that there is one message
> available if (secsPerBatch * limit) < 1.0. And as you say, in a future
> batch it is very like to become greater than 1.0.
> Do you agree?
>
> â
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/17774#issuecomment-297758733>, or
mute
> the thread
>
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGAB1X8NCNqECUlx9X54DSAmbnHmHdAks5r0LvggaJpZM4NJAVA>
> .
>
---
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 [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
