Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-542: Partition Reassignment Throttling

Hey Viktor, I intuitively think that reassignment is a form of (extra) replication, so I think the non-additive version sounds more natural to me. Would be good to see what others think Thanks for summing up what you changed in the KIP's wording here. Best, Stanislav On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-542: Partition Reassignment Throttling

Hey Stan, 1. Yes. 2. Yes and no :). My earlier suggestion was exactly that. In the last reply to you I meant that if the replication throttle is 20 and the reassignment throttle is 10 then we'd still have 20 total throttle but 10 of that can be used for general replication and 10 again for

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-542: Partition Reassignment Throttling

Hey Viktor, I like your latest idea regarding the replication/reassignment configs interplay - I think it makes sense for replication to always be higher. A small matrix of possibilities in the KIP may be useful to future readers (users) To be extra clear: 1. if reassignment.throttle is -1,

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-542: Partition Reassignment Throttling

This config will only be applied to those replicas which are reassigning and not yet in ISR. When they become ISR then reassignment throttling stops altogether and won't apply when they fall out of ISR. Specifically the validity of the config spans from the point when a reassignment is propagated

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-542: Partition Reassignment Throttling

My concern is that we're very focused on reassignment where I think users enable throttling to avoid overwhelming brokers with replica catch up traffic (typically disk and/or bandwidth). The current approach achieves that by not throttling ISR replication. The downside is that when a broker falls

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-542: Partition Reassignment Throttling

Thanks for the question. I think it depends on how the user will try to fix it. - If they just replace the disk then I think it shouldn't count as a reassignment and should be allocated under the normal replication quotas. In this case there is no reassignment going on as far as I can tell, the

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-542: Partition Reassignment Throttling

Thanks Viktor. How do we intend to handle the case where a broker loses its disk and has to catch up from the beginning? Ismael On Wed, Dec 4, 2019, 4:31 AM Viktor Somogyi-Vass wrote: > Thanks for the notice Ismael, KAFKA-4313 fixed this issue indeed. I've > updated the KIP. > > Viktor > > On

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-542: Partition Reassignment Throttling

Thanks for the notice Ismael, KAFKA-4313 fixed this issue indeed. I've updated the KIP. Viktor On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:28 PM Ismael Juma wrote: > Hi Viktor, > > The KIP states: > > "KIP-73 > < > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-73+Replication+Quotas > > > added > quotas

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-542: Partition Reassignment Throttling

Hi Viktor, The KIP states: "KIP-73 added quotas for replication but it doesn't separate normal replication traffic from reassignment. So a user is able to specify the partition and the throttle rate but it will be

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-542: Partition Reassignment Throttling

Hi Stan, I was about to start a vote on this one but I think I have one more idea to your last point about the total cap. What if we said that the (leader|follower).replication.throttled.rate is the overall limit which we allow for leadership replication (so the total cap) and

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-542: Partition Reassignment Throttling

Exactly. I also can't envision scenarios where we would like to throttle the reassignment traffic to only a subset of the reassigning replicas. The other day I was wondering about that with specialized quotas we can solve the incremental partition reassignment too. Basically the controller would

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-542: Partition Reassignment Throttling

Hi Viktor, > As for the first question I think is no need for *.throttled.replicas in case of reassignment because the LeaderAndIsrRequest exactly specifies the replicas needed to be throttled. Exactly. I also can't envision scenarios where we would like to throttle the reassignment traffic to

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-542: Partition Reassignment Throttling

Hey Stan, > We will introduce two new configs in order to eventually replace *.replication.throttled.rate. Just to clarify, you mean to replace said config in the context of reassignment throttling, right? We are not planning to remove that config Yes, I don't want to remove that config either.

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-542: Partition Reassignment Throttling

Hey Viktor. Thanks for the KIP! > We will introduce two new configs in order to eventually replace *.replication.throttled.rate. Just to clarify, you mean to replace said config in the context of reassignment throttling, right? We are not planning to remove that config And also to clarify,

[DISCUSS] KIP-542: Partition Reassignment Throttling

Hi People, I've created a KIP to improve replication quotas by handling reassignment related throttling as a separate case with its own configurable limits and change the kafka-reassign-partitions tool to use these new configs going forward. Please have a look, I'd be happy to receive any