The sentence ` (KAFKA-4545 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/>) ` could be change to `KAFKA-4545 < https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4545 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-8522>>` ?
On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 2:08 AM Richard Yu <yohan.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jun, Jason, > > I've updated the KIP accordingly. > Sorry for taking a while to get back to you guys. > > We should've ironed out the general approach fairly well now. > So if there isn't any other comments, I will get the vote started then. :) > > Cheers, > Richard > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 3:41 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Hi, Jason, > > > > I agree that your approach is better since it's more general, more > accurate > > and simpler. The only thing is that it may not work for the old message > > format. I am not sure how important it is since most users are probably > > already on the new message format. Perhaps we can just document this > > limitation. > > > > Hi, Richard, > > > > Could you update the KIP with Jason's approach? Also, it seems that > KIP-515 > > is already taken by another KIP. Could you use a new KIP number for this? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jun > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:59 PM Richard Yu <yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > That actually sounds like a pretty good idea to me. No doubt if we use > > this > > > approach, then some comments need to be added that indicates this. > > > But all things considered, I think its not bad at all. > > > > > > I definitely agree with you on that its a little hacky, but it works. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Richard > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:44 AM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Richard, > > > > > > > > It would be unsatisfying to make a big change to the checkpointing > > logic > > > in > > > > order to handle only one case of this problem, right? > > > > > > > > I did have one idea about how to do this. It's a bit of a hack, but > > keep > > > an > > > > open mind ;). The basic problem is having somewhere to embed the > delete > > > > horizon for each batch. In the v2 format, each batch header contains > > two > > > > timestamps: the base timestamp and the max timestamp. Each record in > > the > > > > batch contains a timestamp delta which is relative to the base > > timestamp. > > > > In other words, to get the record timestamp, you add the record delta > > to > > > > the base timestamp. > > > > > > > > Typically there is no reason for the base timestamp to be different > > from > > > > the timestamp of the first message, but this is not a strict > > requirement. > > > > As long as you can get to the record timestamp by adding the base > > > timestamp > > > > and delta, then we are good. So the idea is to set the base timestamp > > to > > > > the delete horizon and adjust the deltas accordingly. We could then > use > > > one > > > > bit from the batch attributes to indicate when the base timestamp had > > > been > > > > set to the delete horizon. There would be no change to the batch max > > > > timestamp, so indexing would not be affected by this change. > > > > > > > > So the logic would look something like this when cleaning the log. > > > > > > > > Case 1: Normal batch > > > > > > > > a. If delete horizon flag is set, then retain tombstones as long as > the > > > > current time is before the horizon. > > > > b. If no delete horizon is set, then retain tombstones and set the > > delete > > > > horizon in the cleaned batch to current time + > > > > log.cleaner.delete.retention.ms. > > > > > > > > Case 2: Control batch > > > > > > > > a. If delete horizon flag is set, then retain the batch and the > marker > > > > as long as the current time is before the horizon. > > > > b. If no delete horizon is set and there are no records remaining > from > > > the > > > > transaction, then retain the marker and set the delete horizon in the > > > > cleaned batch to current time + log.cleaner.delete.retention.ms. > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > -Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 3:21 PM Richard Yu < > yohan.richard...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > > > > > That hadn't occurred to me. > > > > > > > > > > I think I missed your comment in the discussion, so I created this > > KIP > > > > only > > > > > with resolving the problem regarding tombstones. > > > > > Whats your thoughts? If the problem regarding transaction markers > is > > a > > > > > little too complex, then we can we just leave it out of the KIP and > > fix > > > > the > > > > > tombstones issue. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 8:47 AM Jason Gustafson < > ja...@confluent.io> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Richard, > > > > > > > > > > > > Just reposting my comment from the JIRA: > > > > > > > > > > > > The underlying problem here also impacts the cleaning of > > transaction > > > > > > markers. We use the same delete horizon in order to tell when it > is > > > > safe > > > > > to > > > > > > remove the marker. If all the data from a transaction has been > > > cleaned > > > > > and > > > > > > the delete horizon has passed enough time, then the marker is > > > eligible > > > > > for > > > > > > deletion. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I don't think the same approach that we're proposing to > > fix > > > > the > > > > > > problem for tombstones will work transaction markers. What we > need > > to > > > > > track > > > > > > is the timestamp when all the records from a transaction have > been > > > > > removed. > > > > > > That is when we start the timer for deletion. But this would be > > > > different > > > > > > for every transaction and there is no guarantee that earlier > > > > transactions > > > > > > will be eligible for deletion before later ones. It all depends > on > > > the > > > > > keys > > > > > > written in the transaction. I don't see an obvious way to solve > > this > > > > > > problem without some record-level bookkeeping, but I might be > > missing > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 7:21 PM Richard Yu < > > > yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for chipping in. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The description you provided is pretty apt in describing the > > > > motivation > > > > > > of > > > > > > > the KIP, so I will add it. I've made some changes to the KIP > and > > > > > outlined > > > > > > > the basic approaches of what we have so far (basically changing > > the > > > > > > > checkpoint file organization or incorporating an extra internal > > > > header > > > > > > > field for a record). I will expand on them shortly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any comments are appreciated! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 3:10 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Richard, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for drafting the KIP. A few comments below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We need to provide a better motivation for the KIP. The > goal > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > > KIP > > > > > > > > is not to reorganize the checkpoint for log cleaning. It's > just > > > an > > > > > > > > implementation detail. I was thinking that we could add sth > > like > > > > the > > > > > > > > following in the Motivation/Problem section. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The idea of the configuration delete.retention.ms for > > compacted > > > > > > topics > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > to prevent an application that has read a key to not see a > > > > subsequent > > > > > > > > deletion of the key because it's physically removed too > early. > > To > > > > > solve > > > > > > > > this problem, from the latest possible time (deleteHorizonMs) > > > that > > > > an > > > > > > > > application could have read a non tombstone key before a > > > tombstone, > > > > > we > > > > > > > > preserve that tombstone for at least delete.retention.ms and > > > > require > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > application to complete the reading of the tombstone by then. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deleteHorizonMs is no later than the time when the cleaner > has > > > > > cleaned > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > to the tombstone. After that time, no application can read a > > > > > > > non-tombstone > > > > > > > > key before the tombstone because they have all been cleaned > > away > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > compaction. Since currently we don't explicitly store the > time > > > > when a > > > > > > > round > > > > > > > > of cleaning completes, deleteHorizonMs is estimated by the > last > > > > > > modified > > > > > > > > time of the segment containing firstDirtyOffset. When merging > > > > > multiple > > > > > > > log > > > > > > > > segments into a single one, the last modified time is > inherited > > > > from > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > last merged segment. So the last modified time of the newly > > > merged > > > > > > > segment > > > > > > > > is actually not an accurate estimate of deleteHorizonMs. It > > could > > > > be > > > > > > > > arbitrarily before (KAFKA-4545 < > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ > > > > > > >) > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > after (KAFKA-8522 < > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-8522 > > > > > >). > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > former causes the tombstone to be deleted too early, which > can > > > > cause > > > > > an > > > > > > > > application to miss the deletion of a key. The latter causes > > the > > > > > > > tombstone > > > > > > > > to be retained longer than needed and potentially forever." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We probably want to change the title of the KIP accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The proposed implementation of the KIP is to remember the > > > > > > > > firstDirtyOffset offset and the corresponding cleaning time > in > > a > > > > > > > checkpoint > > > > > > > > file per partition and then use them to estimate > > deleteHorizonMs. > > > > It > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > be useful to document the format of the new checkpoint file > and > > > how > > > > > it > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > be used during cleaning. Some examples will be helpful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Thinking about this more. There is another way to solve > this > > > > > > problem. > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > could write the deleteHorizonMs for each tombstone as an > > internal > > > > > > header > > > > > > > > field of the record (e.g., __deleteHorizonMs). That timestamp > > > could > > > > > be > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > starting time of the log cleaner when the tombstone's offset > is > > > <= > > > > > > > > firstDirtyOffset. We could use this timestamp to determine > > > whether > > > > > the > > > > > > > > tombstone should be removed in subsequent rounds of cleaning. > > > This > > > > > way, > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > can still keep the current per disk checkpoint file, which is > > > more > > > > > > > > efficient. Personally, I think this approach may be better. > > Could > > > > you > > > > > > > > document this approach in the wiki as well so that we can > > discuss > > > > > which > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > to pick? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 7:45 PM Richard Yu < > > > > > yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A KIP has been written that wishes to upgrade the > checkpoint > > > file > > > > > > > system > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > log cleaner. > > > > > > > > > If anybody wishes to comment, feel free to do so. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-515%3A+Reorganize+checkpoint+file+system+in+log+cleaner+to+be+per+partition > > > > > > > > > Above is the link for reference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
