Hi Jun, Thanks for looking into the updated KIP and clarifying our earlier queries.
>20. It's fine to keep the HDFS binding temporarily in the PR. We just need to remove it before it's merged to trunk. As Victor mentioned, we can provide a reference implementation based on a mocked version of remote storage. Sure, sounds good. >21. I am not sure that I understood the need for RemoteLogIndexEntry and its relationship with RemoteLogSegmentInfo. It seems that RemoteLogIndexEntry are offset index entries pointing to record batches inside a segment. That seems to be the same as the .index file? That is a good point. `RemoteLogManager` does not put a restriction on `RemoteStorageManager(RSM)` for maintaining positions in the remote segment same as the local segments or keeping a correlation between local segment's positions to the remote segment positions. RSM gives back the respective entries for a given log segment, call RSM to fetch the data by giving the respective entry. This allows RSM to have better control in managing the given log segments. Thanks, Satish. On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 2:28 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > Hi, Harsha, > > I am still looking at the KIP and the PR. A couple of quick > comments/questions. > > 20. It's fine to keep the HDFS binding temporarily in the PR. We just need > to remove it before it's merged to trunk. As Victor mentioned, we can > provide a reference implementation based on a mocked version of remote > storage. > > 21. I am not sure that I understood the need for RemoteLogIndexEntry and > its relationship with RemoteLogSegmentInfo. It seems > that RemoteLogIndexEntry are offset index entries pointing to record > batches inside a segment. That seems to be the same as the .index file? > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 9:11 PM Satish Duggana <satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Viktor, > > >1. Can we allow RLM Followers to serve read requests? After all segments > > on > > the cold storage are closed ones, no modification is allowed. Besides > > KIP-392 ( > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-392%3A+Allow+consumers+to+fetch+from+closest+replica > > ) > > would introduce follower fetching too, so I think it would be nice to > > prepare RLM for this as well. > > > > That is a good point. We plan to support fetching remote storage from > > followers too. Current code in the PR work fine for this scenario > > though there may be some edge cases to be handled. We have not yet > > tested this scenario. > > > > >2. I think the remote.log.storage.enable config is redundant. By > > specifying > > remote.log.storage.manager.class.name one already declares that they want > > to use remote storage. Would it make sense to remove > > the remote.log.storage.enable config? > > > > I do not think it is really needed. `remote.log.storage.enable` > > property can be removed. > > > > Thanks, > > Satish. > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 2:46 PM Viktor Somogyi-Vass > > <viktorsomo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > > > A couple more questions: > > > 1. Can we allow RLM Followers to serve read requests? After all segments > > on > > > the cold storage are closed ones, no modification is allowed. Besides > > > KIP-392 ( > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-392%3A+Allow+consumers+to+fetch+from+closest+replica > > ) > > > would introduce follower fetching too, so I think it would be nice to > > > prepare RLM for this as well. > > > 2. I think the remote.log.storage.enable config is redundant. By > > specifying > > > remote.log.storage.manager.class.name one already declares that they > > want > > > to use remote storage. Would it make sense to remove > > > the remote.log.storage.enable config? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Viktor > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:37 AM Viktor Somogyi-Vass < > > > viktorsomo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Jun & Harsha, > > > > > > > > I think it would be beneficial to at least provide one simple reference > > > > implementation (file system based?) as we do with connect too. > > > > That would as a simple example and would help plugin developers to > > better > > > > understand the concept and the interfaces. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Viktor > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 8:49 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi, Harsha, > > > >> > > > >> Regarding feature branch, if the goal is faster collaboration, it > > seems > > > >> that doing the development on your own fork is better since > > non-committers > > > >> can push changes there. > > > >> > > > >> Regarding the dependencies, this is an important thing to clarify. My > > > >> understanding for this KIP is that in Apache Kafka, we won't provide > > any > > > >> specific implementation for a particular block storage. There are many > > > >> block storage systems out there (HDFS, S3, Google storage, Azure > > storage, > > > >> Ceph, etc). We don't want to drag in all those dependencies in Apache > > > >> Kafka, even if they are in a separate module. Doing that will make the > > > >> Kafka repo much harder to manage. We have used the same approach for > > > >> connect. The connect framework is in Apache Kafka, but all specific > > > >> connectors are hosted externally. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> > > > >> Jun > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 8:41 AM Eno Thereska <eno.there...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks Satish, Harsha, > > > >> > > > > >> > It's probably worth it making it clearer in the KIP what exact > > > >> > libraries will be added to libs, if any. The KIP specifies the > > remote > > > >> > storage interface but it isn't clear if particular implementations > > > >> > will be added to Kafka's repository or whether they will reside in > > > >> > other repositories. If I understand the intention correctly, you are > > > >> > proposing to have an HDFS and S3 implementation as part of the Kafka > > > >> > repository working out of the box. Is that correct? > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks > > > >> > Eno > > > >> > > > > >> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:01 AM Satish Duggana < > > > >> satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >Regarding the HDFS dependency its not a direct dependency rather > > > >> > > its implementing the RemoteStorageManager interface. > > > >> > > We packaged it along with core to make it more convenient to test > > it. > > > >> We > > > >> > > can move this to external module and keep it there. > > > >> > > Let me know what you think. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Let me elaborate more on this point. With the new changes in the > > PR, > > > >> > > kafka core or any other existing module is not dependent on HDFS. > > We > > > >> > > created a new module called `remote-storage-managers/hdfs`. > > Libraries > > > >> > > generated by this module are added to libs while packaging the > > > >> > > distribution. This makes easy for users to try HDFS tiered storage > > > >> > > instead of users building hdfs module and add it to libs on their > > own. > > > >> > > We have plans to push these libs into external/libs/ directory and > > > >> > > they will not be added to the classpath by default. We can add > > them to > > > >> > > the classpath in scripts based on a system property. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 6:26 AM Harsha Chintalapani < > > ka...@harsha.io> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Hi Jun, > > > >> > > > Thanks for the feedback. Given the no.of engineers > > > >> involved > > > >> > in > > > >> > > > cross-team effort > > > >> > > > it would be great to have this as feature branch. Irrespective > > of if > > > >> > its in > > > >> > > > my fork > > > >> > > > or in Apache Kafka's branch it needs to be constantly rebased > > from > > > >> > trunk to > > > >> > > > keep it current. > > > >> > > > Our proposal is to merge it in feature branch and open a PR so > > its > > > >> no > > > >> > > > different than current PR except that > > > >> > > > its in central repo rather my fork. Having it in Kafka's branch > > > >> > > > makes it easier for everyone to collaborate on this important > > > >> feature > > > >> > in > > > >> > > > kafka. Let me know if you still think otherwise. > > > >> > > > KIP is updated and we can go through the discussion. > > > >> > > > Regarding the HDFS dependency its not a direct > > dependency > > > >> > rather > > > >> > > > its implementing the RemoteStorageManager interface. > > > >> > > > We packaged it along with core to make it more convenient to > > test > > > >> it. > > > >> > We > > > >> > > > can move this to external module and keep it there. > > > >> > > > Let me know what you think. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > Harsha > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 3:53 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi, Harsha, > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Historically, we tried using a feature branch in 0.8. The > > > >> experience > > > >> > > > > actually wasn't great. Merging the feature branch to the main > > > >> branch > > > >> > > > > required additional review work and each merge with the main > > > >> branch > > > >> > added > > > >> > > > > the risk of introducing new bugs. So, we have been avoiding > > > >> feature > > > >> > > > > branches since then, even for some major features. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > It's also going to be weird to have a feature branch before a > > KIP > > > >> is > > > >> > > > > accepted. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > The KIP hasn't been updated much since the initial reviews. > > Is it > > > >> > ready for > > > >> > > > > discussion again? > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Looking at the PR, it seems to have direct dependency on > > HDFS. My > > > >> > > > > understanding is that the goal of the KIP is to make it more > > > >> general > > > >> > such > > > >> > > > > that it can bind to different types of block storage. If so, > > we > > > >> > should > > > >> > > > > avoid introducing a direct dependency to any specific block > > > >> storage > > > >> > in > > > >> > > > > Apache Kafka. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Jun > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 8:46 AM Harsha <ka...@harsha.io> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi All, > > > >> > > > > > Thanks for the initial feedback on the KIP-405. > > We > > > >> > opened a PR > > > >> > > > > > here https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/7561 . > > > >> > > > > > Please take a look and let us know if you have any > > questions. > > > >> > > > > > Since this feature is being developed by engineers from > > > >> different > > > >> > > > > > companies we would like to open a feature branch in apache > > kafka > > > >> > git. It > > > >> > > > > > will allow us collaborate in open source community rather > > than > > > >> in > > > >> > private > > > >> > > > > > branches. Please let me know if you have any objections to > > > >> opening > > > >> > a > > > >> > > > > > feature branch in kafka's git repo. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > > Harsha > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019, at 10:04 PM, Harsha wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks, Ron. Updating the KIP. will add answers here as > > well > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 1) If the cold storage technology can be cross-region, is > > > >> there > > > >> > a > > > >> > > > > > > possibility for a disaster recovery Kafka cluster to > > share > > > >> the > > > >> > > > > messages > > > >> > > > > > in > > > >> > > > > > > cold storage? My guess is the answer is no, and messages > > > >> > replicated > > > >> > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > D/R cluster have to be migrated to cold storage from > > there > > > >> > > > > > independently. > > > >> > > > > > > (The same cross-region cold storage medium could be > > used, but > > > >> > every > > > >> > > > > > message > > > >> > > > > > > would appear there twice). > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > If I understand the question correctly, what you are > > saying is > > > >> > Kafka A > > > >> > > > > > > cluster (active) shipping logs to remote storage which > > > >> > cross-region > > > >> > > > > > > replication and another Kafka Cluster B (Passive) will it > > be > > > >> > able to > > > >> > > > > > > use the remote storage copied logs directly. > > > >> > > > > > > For the initial version my answer is No. We can handle > > this in > > > >> > > > > > > subsequent changes after this one. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2) Can/should external (non-Kafka) tools have direct > > access > > > >> to > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > > messages > > > >> > > > > > > in cold storage. I think this might have been addressed > > when > > > >> > someone > > > >> > > > > > asked > > > >> > > > > > > about ACLs, and I believe the answer is "no" -- if some > > > >> > external tool > > > >> > > > > > needs > > > >> > > > > > > to operate on that data then that external tool should > > read > > > >> > that data > > > >> > > > > by > > > >> > > > > > > acting as a Kafka consumer. Again, just asking to get the > > > >> answer > > > >> > > > > clearly > > > >> > > > > > > documented in case it is unclear. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The answer is No. All tools/clients must go through broker > > > >> APIs > > > >> > to > > > >> > > > > > > access any data (local or remote). > > > >> > > > > > > Only Kafka broker user will have access to remote storage > > logs > > > >> > and > > > >> > > > > > > Security/ACLs will work the way it does today. > > > >> > > > > > > Tools/Clients going directly to the remote storage might > > help > > > >> in > > > >> > terms > > > >> > > > > > > of efficiency but this requires Protocol changes and some > > way > > > >> of > > > >> > > > > > > syncing ACLs in Kafka to the Remote storage. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > > > Harsha > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019, at 8:48 AM, Ron Dagostino wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Harsha. A couple of questions. I think I know the > > > >> > answers, but > > > >> > > > > it > > > >> > > > > > > > would be good to see them explicitly documented. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 1) If the cold storage technology can be cross-region, > > is > > > >> > there a > > > >> > > > > > > > possibility for a disaster recovery Kafka cluster to > > share > > > >> the > > > >> > > > > > messages in > > > >> > > > > > > > cold storage? My guess is the answer is no, and > > messages > > > >> > replicated > > > >> > > > > > to the > > > >> > > > > > > > D/R cluster have to be migrated to cold storage from > > there > > > >> > > > > > independently. > > > >> > > > > > > > (The same cross-region cold storage medium could be > > used, > > > >> but > > > >> > every > > > >> > > > > > message > > > >> > > > > > > > would appear there twice). > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 2) Can/should external (non-Kafka) tools have direct > > access > > > >> to > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > > messages > > > >> > > > > > > > in cold storage. I think this might have been addressed > > > >> when > > > >> > someone > > > >> > > > > > asked > > > >> > > > > > > > about ACLs, and I believe the answer is "no" -- if some > > > >> > external tool > > > >> > > > > > needs > > > >> > > > > > > > to operate on that data then that external tool should > > read > > > >> > that data > > > >> > > > > > by > > > >> > > > > > > > acting as a Kafka consumer. Again, just asking to get > > the > > > >> > answer > > > >> > > > > > clearly > > > >> > > > > > > > documented in case it is unclear. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Ron > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:53 AM Harsha <ka...@harsha.io > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Viktor, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > "Now, will the consumer be able to consume a remote > > > >> segment > > > >> > if: > > > >> > > > > > > > > - the remote segment is stored in the remote storage, > > BUT > > > >> > > > > > > > > - the leader broker failed right after this AND > > > >> > > > > > > > > - the follower which is to become a leader didn't > > scan yet > > > >> > for a > > > >> > > > > new > > > >> > > > > > > > > segment?" > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If I understand correctly, after a local log segment > > > >> copied > > > >> > to > > > >> > > > > > remote and > > > >> > > > > > > > > leader is failed to write the index files and > > leadership > > > >> > changed > > > >> > > > > to a > > > >> > > > > > > > > follower. In this case we consider the log segment > > copy > > > >> > failed and > > > >> > > > > > newly > > > >> > > > > > > > > elected leader will start copying the data from last > > the > > > >> > known > > > >> > > > > > offset in > > > >> > > > > > > > > the remote to copy. Consumers who are looking for the > > > >> > offset which > > > >> > > > > > might > > > >> > > > > > > > > be in the failed copy log segment will continue to be > > read > > > >> > the data > > > >> > > > > > from > > > >> > > > > > > > > local disk since the local log segment will only be > > > >> deleted > > > >> > once a > > > >> > > > > > > > > successful copy of the log segment. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > "As a follow-up question, what are your experiences, > > does > > > >> a > > > >> > > > > failover > > > >> > > > > > in a > > > >> > > > > > > > > broker causes bigger than usual churn in the > > consumers? > > > >> (I'm > > > >> > > > > > thinking about > > > >> > > > > > > > > the time required to rebuild remote index files.)" > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Rebuild remote index files will only happen in case of > > > >> > remote > > > >> > > > > > storage > > > >> > > > > > > > > missing all the copied index files. Fail-over will > > not > > > >> > trigger > > > >> > > > > this > > > >> > > > > > > > > rebuild. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Ryan, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > "Harsha, can you comment on this alternative approach: > > > >> > instead of > > > >> > > > > > fetching > > > >> > > > > > > > > directly from remote storage via a new API, implement > > > >> > something > > > >> > > > > like > > > >> > > > > > > > > paging, where segments are paged-in and out of cold > > > >> storage > > > >> > based > > > >> > > > > on > > > >> > > > > > access > > > >> > > > > > > > > frequency/recency? For example, when a remote segment > > is > > > >> > accessed, > > > >> > > > > > it could > > > >> > > > > > > > > be first fetched to disk and then read from there. I > > > >> suppose > > > >> > this > > > >> > > > > > would > > > >> > > > > > > > > require less code changes, or at least less API > > changes." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Copying whole log segment from remote is inefficient. > > When > > > >> > tiered > > > >> > > > > > storage > > > >> > > > > > > > > is enabled users might prefer hardware with smaller > > disks > > > >> and > > > >> > > > > having > > > >> > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > copy the log segment to local disk again , especially > > > >> incase > > > >> > of > > > >> > > > > > multiple > > > >> > > > > > > > > consumers on multiple topics triggering this might > > > >> negatively > > > >> > > > > affect > > > >> > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > available local storage. > > > >> > > > > > > > > What we proposed in the KIP doesn't affect the > > existing > > > >> APIs > > > >> > and we > > > >> > > > > > didn't > > > >> > > > > > > > > call for any API changes. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > "And related to paging, does the proposal address what > > > >> > happens > > > >> > > > > when a > > > >> > > > > > > > > broker > > > >> > > > > > > > > runs out of HDD space? Maybe we should have a way to > > > >> > configure a > > > >> > > > > max > > > >> > > > > > number > > > >> > > > > > > > > of segments or bytes stored on each broker, after > > which > > > >> > older or > > > >> > > > > > > > > least-recently-used segments are kicked out, even if > > they > > > >> > aren't > > > >> > > > > > expired > > > >> > > > > > > > > per the retention policy? Otherwise, I suppose tiered > > > >> storage > > > >> > > > > > requires some > > > >> > > > > > > > > babysitting to ensure that brokers don't run out of > > local > > > >> > storage, > > > >> > > > > > despite > > > >> > > > > > > > > having access to potentially unbounded cold storage." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Existing Kafka behavior will not change with addition > > of > > > >> > tiered > > > >> > > > > > storage > > > >> > > > > > > > > and enabling it also will not change behavior. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Just like today it's up to the operator to make sure > > the > > > >> HD > > > >> > space > > > >> > > > > is > > > >> > > > > > > > > monitored and take necessary actions to mitigate that > > > >> before > > > >> > it > > > >> > > > > > becomes > > > >> > > > > > > > > fatal failure for broker. We don't stop users to > > configure > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > > retention > > > >> > > > > > > > > period to infinite and they can easily run out of the > > > >> space. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > These are not the alternatives considered as they are > > not > > > >> > efficient > > > >> > > > > > copy > > > >> > > > > > > > > in out of local disk , hence the reason we didn't add > > to > > > >> > > > > alternatives > > > >> > > > > > > > > considered :). > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > > > > > Harsha > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019, at 7:51 AM, Ryanne Dolan wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Harsha, can you comment on this alternative > > approach: > > > >> > instead of > > > >> > > > > > fetching > > > >> > > > > > > > > > directly from remote storage via a new API, > > implement > > > >> > something > > > >> > > > > > like > > > >> > > > > > > > > > paging, where segments are paged-in and out of cold > > > >> > storage based > > > >> > > > > > on > > > >> > > > > > > > > access > > > >> > > > > > > > > > frequency/recency? For example, when a remote > > segment is > > > >> > > > > accessed, > > > >> > > > > > it > > > >> > > > > > > > > could > > > >> > > > > > > > > > be first fetched to disk and then read from there. I > > > >> > suppose this > > > >> > > > > > would > > > >> > > > > > > > > > require less code changes, or at least less API > > changes. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > And related to paging, does the proposal address > > what > > > >> > happens > > > >> > > > > when > > > >> > > > > > a > > > >> > > > > > > > > broker > > > >> > > > > > > > > > runs out of HDD space? Maybe we should have a way to > > > >> > configure a > > > >> > > > > > max > > > >> > > > > > > > > number > > > >> > > > > > > > > > of segments or bytes stored on each broker, after > > which > > > >> > older or > > > >> > > > > > > > > > least-recently-used segments are kicked out, even if > > > >> they > > > >> > aren't > > > >> > > > > > expired > > > >> > > > > > > > > > per the retention policy? Otherwise, I suppose > > tiered > > > >> > storage > > > >> > > > > > requires > > > >> > > > > > > > > some > > > >> > > > > > > > > > babysitting to ensure that brokers don't run out of > > > >> local > > > >> > > > > storage, > > > >> > > > > > > > > despite > > > >> > > > > > > > > > having access to potentially unbounded cold storage. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Just some things to add to Alternatives Considered > > :) > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Ryanne > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 8:21 AM Viktor Somogyi-Vass < > > > >> > > > > > > > > viktorsomo...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the answer, makes sense. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > In the meantime one edge case popped up in my > > mind but > > > >> > first > > > >> > > > > let > > > >> > > > > > me > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > summarize what I understand if I interpret your > > KIP > > > >> > correctly. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > So basically whenever the leader RSM copies over a > > > >> > segment to > > > >> > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > storage, the leader RLM will append an entry to > > its > > > >> > remote > > > >> > > > > index > > > >> > > > > > files > > > >> > > > > > > > > with > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > the remote position. After this LogManager can > > delete > > > >> > the local > > > >> > > > > > > > > segment. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Parallel to this RLM followers are periodically > > > >> scanning > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > > > > storage > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > for files and if they find a new one they update > > their > > > >> > indices. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Now, will the consumer be able to consume a remote > > > >> > segment if: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - the remote segment is stored in the remote > > storage, > > > >> BUT > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - the leader broker failed right after this AND > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - the follower which is to become a leader didn't > > scan > > > >> > yet for > > > >> > > > > a > > > >> > > > > > new > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > segment? > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Would this result in an OffsetOutOfRangeException > > or > > > >> > would the > > > >> > > > > > failover > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > halt the consume request until the new leader has > > the > > > >> > latest > > > >> > > > > > > > > information? > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > As a follow-up question, what are your > > experiences, > > > >> does > > > >> > a > > > >> > > > > > failover in > > > >> > > > > > > > > a > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > broker causes bigger than usual churn in the > > > >> consumers? > > > >> > (I'm > > > >> > > > > > thinking > > > >> > > > > > > > > about > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > the time required to rebuild remote index files.) > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Viktor > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:49 PM Harsha < > > > >> ka...@harsha.io> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eno, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. Answers are > > inline > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > "Performance & durability > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------- > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - would be good to have more discussion on > > > >> performance > > > >> > > > > > implications > > > >> > > > > > > > > of > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > tiering. Copying the data from the local > > storage to > > > >> the > > > >> > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > > > > storage is > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > going to be expensive in terms of network > > bandwidth > > > >> > and will > > > >> > > > > > affect > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > foreground traffic to Kafka potentially > > reducing its > > > >> > > > > > throughput and > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > latency." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. We've run our local tests with > > 10GigE > > > >> > cards, even > > > >> > > > > > though > > > >> > > > > > > > > our > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > clients bandwidth requirements are high with > > 1000s > > > >> of > > > >> > clients > > > >> > > > > > > > > producing / > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > consuming data we never hit hit our limits on > > > >> network > > > >> > > > > > bandwidth. More > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > often > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > we hit limits of CPU, Mem limits than the > > network > > > >> > bandwidth. > > > >> > > > > > But > > > >> > > > > > > > > this is > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > something to be taken care of by the operator if > > > >> they > > > >> > want to > > > >> > > > > > enable > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > tiered > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Also as mentioned in the KIP/previous threads > > > >> ,clients > > > >> > > > > > requesting > > > >> > > > > > > > > older > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > data is very rare and often used as insurance > > > >> policy . > > > >> > What > > > >> > > > > > proposed > > > >> > > > > > > > > here > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > does increase bandwidth interms of shipping > > > >> > logsegments to > > > >> > > > > > remote but > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > access patterns determines how much we end up > > > >> reading > > > >> > from > > > >> > > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > > > > tier. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > "- throttling the copying of the data above > > might > > > >> be a > > > >> > > > > > solution, > > > >> > > > > > > > > however, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > if > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > you have a few TB of data to move to the slower > > > >> remote > > > >> > tier > > > >> > > > > > the risk > > > >> > > > > > > > > is > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > that the movement will never complete on time > > under > > > >> > high > > > >> > > > > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > load. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Do > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > we > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > need a scheduler to use idle time to do the > > > >> copying?" > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > In our design, we are going to have scheduler > > in RLM > > > >> > which > > > >> > > > > will > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > periodically copy in-active(rolled-over) log > > > >> segments. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure idle time is easy to calculate and > > > >> schedule a > > > >> > copy. > > > >> > > > > > More > > > >> > > > > > > > > over we > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > want to copy the segments as soon as they are > > > >> > available. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Throttling something we can take into account > > and > > > >> > provide > > > >> > > > > > options to > > > >> > > > > > > > > tune > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > "- Have you considered having two options: 1) a > > slow > > > >> > tier > > > >> > > > > only > > > >> > > > > > > > > (e.g., all > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the data on HDFS) and 2) a fast tier only like > > Kafka > > > >> > today. > > > >> > > > > > This > > > >> > > > > > > > > would > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > avoid copying data between the tiers. Customers > > that > > > >> > can > > > >> > > > > > tolerate a > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > slower > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > tier with a better price/GB can just choose > > option > > > >> > (1). Would > > > >> > > > > > be > > > >> > > > > > > > > good to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > put in Alternatives considered." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > What we want to have is Kafka that is known to > > the > > > >> > users > > > >> > > > > > today with > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > local > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > fast disk access and fast data serving layer. > > > >> Tiered > > > >> > Storage > > > >> > > > > > option > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > might > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > not be for everyone and most users who are happy > > > >> with > > > >> > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > today > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > shouldn't > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > see changes to their operation because of this > > KIP. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Fundamentally, we believe remote tiered storage > > data > > > >> > accessed > > > >> > > > > > very > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > infrequently. We expect anyone going to read > > from > > > >> > remote > > > >> > > > > tiered > > > >> > > > > > > > > storage > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > expects a slower read response (mostly > > backfills). > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Making an explicit change like slow/fast tier > > will > > > >> > only cause > > > >> > > > > > more > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > confusion and operation complexity that will > > bring > > > >> > into play. > > > >> > > > > > With > > > >> > > > > > > > > tiered > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage , only users who want to use cheaper > > > >> long-term > > > >> > > > > storage > > > >> > > > > > can > > > >> > > > > > > > > enable > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > it and others can operate the Kafka as its > > today. > > > >> It > > > >> > will > > > >> > > > > > give a > > > >> > > > > > > > > good > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > balance of serving latest reads from local disk > > > >> almost > > > >> > all > > > >> > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > time > > > >> > > > > > > > > and > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > shipping older data and reading from remote tier > > > >> when > > > >> > clients > > > >> > > > > > needs > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > older data. If necessary, we can re-visit > > > >> > slow/fast-tier > > > >> > > > > > options at a > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > later > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > point. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > "Topic configs > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - related to performance but also availability, > > we > > > >> > need to > > > >> > > > > > discuss > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > replication mode for the remote tier. For > > example, > > > >> if > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > > > > topics > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > used > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to have 3-way replication, will they continue to > > > >> have > > > >> > 3-way > > > >> > > > > > > > > replication > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > on > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the remote tier? Will the user configure that > > > >> > replication? In > > > >> > > > > > S3 for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > example, one can choose from different S3 tiers > > like > > > >> > STD or > > > >> > > > > > SIA, but > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > there > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > is no direct control over the replication factor > > > >> like > > > >> > in > > > >> > > > > > Kafka." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > No. Remote tier is expected to be reliable > > storage > > > >> > with its > > > >> > > > > own > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > replication mechanisms. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > " how will security and ACLs be configured for > > the > > > >> > remote > > > >> > > > > tier. > > > >> > > > > > > > > E.g., if > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > user A does not have access to a Kafka topic, > > when > > > >> > that topic > > > >> > > > > > is > > > >> > > > > > > > > moved to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > S3 or HDFS there needs to be a way to prevent > > access > > > >> > to the > > > >> > > > > S3 > > > >> > > > > > > > > bucket for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > that user. This might be outside the scope of > > this > > > >> KIP > > > >> > but > > > >> > > > > > would be > > > >> > > > > > > > > good > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > discuss first." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned in the KIP "Alternatives" section > > We > > > >> > will keep > > > >> > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > Kafka as > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the owner of those files in S3 or HDFS and take > > > >> > advantage of > > > >> > > > > > HDFS > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > security > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > model (file system permissions). So any user who > > > >> wants > > > >> > to go > > > >> > > > > > > > > directly and > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > access files from HDFS will not be able to read > > them > > > >> > and any > > > >> > > > > > client > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > requests will go through Kafka and its ACLs will > > > >> apply > > > >> > like > > > >> > > > > it > > > >> > > > > > does > > > >> > > > > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > any > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > other request. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ron, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > " I'm excited about this potential feature. > > Did you > > > >> > consider > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > storing the information about the remote > > segments > > > >> in a > > > >> > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > topic as > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > opposed to in the remote storage itself? The > > topic > > > >> > would > > > >> > > > > need > > > >> > > > > > > > > infinite > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > retention (or it would need to be compacted) so > > as > > > >> not > > > >> > to > > > >> > > > > > itself be > > > >> > > > > > > > > sent > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > cold storage, but assuming that topic would fit > > on > > > >> > local disk > > > >> > > > > > for all > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > time > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > (an open question as to whether this is > > acceptable > > > >> or > > > >> > not) it > > > >> > > > > > feels > > > >> > > > > > > > > like > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the most natural way to communicate information > > > >> among > > > >> > brokers > > > >> > > > > > -- more > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > natural than having them poll the remote storage > > > >> > systems, at > > > >> > > > > > least." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > With RemoteIndex we are extending the current > > index > > > >> > mechanism > > > >> > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > find a > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > offset and its message to find a file in remote > > > >> > storage for a > > > >> > > > > > givent > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > offset. This will be optimal way finding for a > > given > > > >> > offset > > > >> > > > > > which > > > >> > > > > > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > segment might be serving compare to storing all > > of > > > >> > this data > > > >> > > > > > into > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > internal > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > topic. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > "To add to Eric's question/confusion about where > > > >> logic > > > >> > lives > > > >> > > > > > (RLM vs. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > RSM), > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be helpful to explicitly > > identify > > > >> in > > > >> > the KIP > > > >> > > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > RLM > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > delegates to the RSM since the RSM is part of > > the > > > >> > public API > > > >> > > > > > and is > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > pluggable piece. For example, instead of saying > > > >> "RLM > > > >> > will > > > >> > > > > > ship the > > > >> > > > > > > > > log > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > segment files that are older than a configurable > > > >> time > > > >> > to > > > >> > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > > > > storage" > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > think it would be better to say "RLM identifies > > log > > > >> > segment > > > >> > > > > > files > > > >> > > > > > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > are > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > older than a configurable time and delegates to > > the > > > >> > > > > configured > > > >> > > > > > RSM to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ship > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > them to remote storage" (or something like that > > -- > > > >> > just make > > > >> > > > > > it clear > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the RLM is delegating to the configured RSM)." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. I agree with you. I'll update the KIP. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ambud, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > "1. Wouldn't implicit checking for old offsets > > in > > > >> > remote > > > >> > > > > > location if > > > >> > > > > > > > > not > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > found locally on the leader i.e. do we really > > need > > > >> > remote > > > >> > > > > index > > > >> > > > > > > > > files? > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Since the storage path for a given topic would > > > >> > presumably be > > > >> > > > > > constant > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > across all the brokers, the remote > > topic-partition > > > >> > path could > > > >> > > > > > simply > > > >> > > > > > > > > be > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > checked to see if there are any segment file > > names > > > >> > that would > > > >> > > > > > meet > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > offset requirements for a Consumer Fetch > > Request. > > > >> RSM > > > >> > > > > > implementations > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > could > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > optionally cache this information." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > By storing the remote index files locally , it > > will > > > >> be > > > >> > faster > > > >> > > > > > for us > > > >> > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > determine for a requested offset which file > > might > > > >> > contain the > > > >> > > > > > data. > > > >> > > > > > > > > This > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > will help us resolve the remote file quickly and > > > >> > return the > > > >> > > > > > response. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of making a call to remote tier for > > index > > > >> look > > > >> > up. > > > >> > > > > > Given > > > >> > > > > > > > > index > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > files are smaller , it won't be much hit to the > > > >> storage > > > >> > > > > space. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > "2. Would it make sense to create an internal > > > >> > compacted Kafka > > > >> > > > > > topic > > > >> > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > publish & record remote segment information? > > This > > > >> would > > > >> > > > > enable > > > >> > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > followers to get updates about new segments > > rather > > > >> than > > > >> > > > > running > > > >> > > > > > > > > list() > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > operations on remote storage to detect new > > segments > > > >> > which may > > > >> > > > > > be > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > expensive." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I think Ron also alluding to this. We thought > > > >> shipping > > > >> > remote > > > >> > > > > > index > > > >> > > > > > > > > files > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to remote storage files and let the follower's > > RLM > > > >> > picking > > > >> > > > > > that up > > > >> > > > > > > > > makes > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > it > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > easy to have the current replication protocol > > > >> without > > > >> > any > > > >> > > > > > changes. > > > >> > > > > > > > > So we > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > don't determine if a follower is in ISR or not > > > >> based on > > > >> > > > > another > > > >> > > > > > > > > topic's > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > replication. We will run small tests and > > determine > > > >> if > > > >> > use of > > > >> > > > > > topic > > > >> > > > > > > > > is > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > better for this. Thanks for the suggestion. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. For RLM to scan local segment rotations are > > you > > > >> > thinking > > > >> > > > > of > > > >> > > > > > > > > leveraging > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > java.nio.file.WatchService or simply running > > > >> > listFiles() on a > > > >> > > > > > > > > periodic > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > basis? Since WatchService implementation is > > heavily > > > >> OS > > > >> > > > > > dependent it > > > >> > > > > > > > > might > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > create some complications around missing FS > > Events. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Ideally we want to introduce file events like > > you > > > >> > suggested. > > > >> > > > > > For POC > > > >> > > > > > > > > work > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > we are using just listFiles(). Also copying > > these > > > >> > files to > > > >> > > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > > > > can be > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > slower and we will not delete the files from > > local > > > >> > disk until > > > >> > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > segment > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > is copied and any requests to the data in these > > > >> files > > > >> > will be > > > >> > > > > > served > > > >> > > > > > > > > from > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > local disk. So I don't think we need to be > > > >> aggressive > > > >> > and > > > >> > > > > > optimize > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > copy segment to remote path. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Viktor, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > "I have a rather technical question to this. > > How do > > > >> > you plan > > > >> > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > package > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > extension? Does this mean that Kafka will > > depend on > > > >> > HDFS? > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I think it'd be nice to somehow separate this > > off > > > >> to a > > > >> > > > > > different > > > >> > > > > > > > > package > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > in > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the project so that it could be built and > > released > > > >> > separately > > > >> > > > > > from > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > main > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka packages." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > We would like all of this code to be part of > > Apache > > > >> > Kafka . > > > >> > > > > In > > > >> > > > > > early > > > >> > > > > > > > > days > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > of Kafka, there is external module which used to > > > >> > contain > > > >> > > > > kafka > > > >> > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > hdfs > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > copy > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > tools and dependencies. We would like to have > > RLM > > > >> > (class > > > >> > > > > > > > > implementation) > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > and RSM(interface) to be in core and as you > > > >> suggested, > > > >> > > > > > > > > implementation of > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > RSM could be in another package so that the > > > >> > dependencies of > > > >> > > > > > RSM won't > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > come > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > into Kafka's classpath unless someone explicity > > > >> > configures > > > >> > > > > > them. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Harsha > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, at 1:02 AM, Viktor > > Somogyi-Vass > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Harsha, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a rather technical question to this. > > How do > > > >> > you plan > > > >> > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > package > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > extension? Does this mean that Kafka will > > depend > > > >> on > > > >> > HDFS? > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it'd be nice to somehow separate this > > off > > > >> to > > > >> > a > > > >> > > > > > different > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > package > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the project so that it could be built and > > released > > > >> > > > > > separately from > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > main > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka packages. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > This decoupling would be useful when direct > > > >> > dependency on > > > >> > > > > > HDFS (or > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > other > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > implementations) is not needed and would also > > > >> > encourage > > > >> > > > > > decoupling > > > >> > > > > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > other storage implementations. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Viktor > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 3:44 AM Ambud Sharma < > > > >> > > > > > > > > asharma52...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for proposing this KIP. We are > > looking > > > >> > forward > > > >> > > > > > to this > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > feature as > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > well. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few questions around the design & > > > >> implementation: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Wouldn't implicit checking for old > > offsets in > > > >> > remote > > > >> > > > > > location > > > >> > > > > > > > > if > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > not > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > found locally on the leader i.e. do we > > really > > > >> need > > > >> > remote > > > >> > > > > > index > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > files? > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the storage path for a given topic > > would > > > >> > presumably > > > >> > > > > > be > > > >> > > > > > > > > constant > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > across all the brokers, the remote > > > >> topic-partition > > > >> > path > > > >> > > > > > could > > > >> > > > > > > > > simply > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > be > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checked to see if there are any segment file > > > >> names > > > >> > that > > > >> > > > > > would > > > >> > > > > > > > > meet > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > offset requirements for a Consumer Fetch > > > >> Request. > > > >> > RSM > > > >> > > > > > > > > implementations > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > could > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > optionally cache this information. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Would it make sense to create an internal > > > >> > compacted > > > >> > > > > > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > > > > topic to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > publish & record remote segment information? > > > >> This > > > >> > would > > > >> > > > > > enable > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > followers to get updates about new segments > > > >> rather > > > >> > than > > > >> > > > > > running > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > list() > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > operations on remote storage to detect new > > > >> > segments which > > > >> > > > > > may be > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > expensive. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. For RLM to scan local segment rotations > > are > > > >> you > > > >> > > > > > thinking of > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > leveraging > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > java.nio.file.WatchService or simply running > > > >> > listFiles() > > > >> > > > > > on a > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > periodic > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > basis? Since WatchService implementation is > > > >> > heavily OS > > > >> > > > > > dependent > > > >> > > > > > > > > it > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > might > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > create some complications around missing FS > > > >> Events. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ambud > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 8:04 AM Ron > > Dagostino < > > > >> > > > > > rndg...@gmail.com > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Harsha. I'm excited about this > > potential > > > >> > feature. > > > >> > > > > > Did you > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > consider > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > storing the information about the remote > > > >> > segments in a > > > >> > > > > > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > > > > topic > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > as > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opposed to in the remote storage itself? > > The > > > >> > topic > > > >> > > > > > would need > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > infinite > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > retention (or it would need to be > > compacted) > > > >> so > > > >> > as not > > > >> > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > itself be > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > sent > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cold storage, but assuming that topic > > would > > > >> fit > > > >> > on > > > >> > > > > local > > > >> > > > > > disk > > > >> > > > > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > all > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > time > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (an open question as to whether this is > > > >> > acceptable or > > > >> > > > > > not) it > > > >> > > > > > > > > feels > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > like > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the most natural way to communicate > > > >> information > > > >> > among > > > >> > > > > > brokers > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > more > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > natural than having them poll the remote > > > >> storage > > > >> > > > > > systems, at > > > >> > > > > > > > > least. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To add to Eric's question/confusion about > > > >> where > > > >> > logic > > > >> > > > > > lives > > > >> > > > > > > > > (RLM > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > vs. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > RSM), > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be helpful to explicitly > > > >> > identify in > > > >> > > > > > the KIP > > > >> > > > > > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > RLM > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > delegates to the RSM since the RSM is > > part of > > > >> the > > > >> > > > > public > > > >> > > > > > API > > > >> > > > > > > > > and is > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pluggable piece. For example, instead of > > > >> saying > > > >> > "RLM > > > >> > > > > > will > > > >> > > > > > > > > ship the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > log > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > segment files that are older than a > > > >> configurable > > > >> > time > > > >> > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage" > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think it would be better to say "RLM > > > >> identifies > > > >> > log > > > >> > > > > > segment > > > >> > > > > > > > > files > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > older than a configurable time and > > delegates > > > >> to > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > > configured > > > >> > > > > > > > > RSM > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ship > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them to remote storage" (or something like > > > >> that > > > >> > -- just > > > >> > > > > > make it > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > clear > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the RLM is delegating to the configured > > RSM). > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ron > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 6:12 AM Eno > > Thereska < > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > eno.there...@gmail.com > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Harsha, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A couple of comments: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Performance & durability > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------- > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - would be good to have more discussion > > on > > > >> > > > > performance > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > implications of > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tiering. Copying the data from the local > > > >> > storage to > > > >> > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > going to be expensive in terms of > > network > > > >> > bandwidth > > > >> > > > > > and will > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > affect > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > foreground traffic to Kafka potentially > > > >> > reducing its > > > >> > > > > > > > > throughput > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > and > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > latency. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - throttling the copying of the data > > above > > > >> > might be a > > > >> > > > > > > > > solution, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > however > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you have a few TB of data to move to the > > > >> slower > > > >> > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > tier > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > risk is > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the movement will never complete on > > > >> time > > > >> > under > > > >> > > > > > high > > > >> > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > load. Do > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need a scheduler to use idle time to do > > the > > > >> > copying? > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Have you considered having two > > options: > > > >> 1) a > > > >> > slow > > > >> > > > > > tier only > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > (e.g., > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the data on HDFS) and 2) a fast tier > > only > > > >> like > > > >> > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > today. > > > >> > > > > > > > > This > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoid copying data between the tiers. > > > >> > Customers that > > > >> > > > > > can > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > tolerate a > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > slower > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tier with a better price/GB can just > > choose > > > >> > option > > > >> > > > > (1). > > > >> > > > > > > > > Would be > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > good > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > put in Alternatives considered. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Topic configs > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - related to performance but also > > > >> > availability, we > > > >> > > > > > need to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > discuss > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replication mode for the remote tier. > > For > > > >> > example, if > > > >> > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > topics > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to have 3-way replication, will they > > > >> continue > > > >> > to have > > > >> > > > > > 3-way > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > replication > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the remote tier? Will the user configure > > > >> that > > > >> > > > > > replication? > > > >> > > > > > > > > In S3 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example, one can choose from different > > S3 > > > >> > tiers like > > > >> > > > > > STD or > > > >> > > > > > > > > SIA, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > but > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is no direct control over the > > replication > > > >> > factor like > > > >> > > > > > in > > > >> > > > > > > > > Kafka. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - how will security and ACLs be > > configured > > > >> for > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > > > > tier. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > E.g., > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user A does not have access to a Kafka > > > >> topic, > > > >> > when > > > >> > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > > > > topic is > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > moved > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S3 or HDFS there needs to be a way to > > > >> prevent > > > >> > access > > > >> > > > > > to the > > > >> > > > > > > > > S3 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > bucket > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that user. This might be outside the > > scope > > > >> of > > > >> > this > > > >> > > > > KIP > > > >> > > > > > but > > > >> > > > > > > > > would > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > be > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > good > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss first. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's it for now, thanks > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eno > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 4:40 PM Harsha < > > > >> > > > > > ka...@harsha.io> > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your initial > > > >> feedback. > > > >> > We > > > >> > > > > > updated the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > KIP. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > take a look and let us know if you > > have > > > >> any > > > >> > > > > > questions. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-405%3A+Kafka+Tiered+Storage > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Harsha > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, at 10:30 AM, > > Harsha > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Eno, Adam & Satish for you > > review > > > >> > and > > > >> > > > > > questions. > > > >> > > > > > > > > I'll > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > address > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these in KIP and update the thread > > here. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Harsha > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, at 7:09 AM, > > Satish > > > >> > Duggana > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Harsha for the KIP. It is > > a > > > >> good > > > >> > start > > > >> > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > > tiered > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka. I have a few > > > >> comments/questions. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may be good to have a > > configuration > > > >> > to keep > > > >> > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > number > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > of > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > local > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > segments instead of keeping only > > the > > > >> > active > > > >> > > > > > segment. > > > >> > > > > > > > > This > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > config > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be exposed at cluster and topic > > levels > > > >> > with > > > >> > > > > > default > > > >> > > > > > > > > value > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > as > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some use cases, few consumers may > > lag > > > >> > over one > > > >> > > > > > > > > segment, it > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better to serve from local storage > > > >> > instead of > > > >> > > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > storage. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may be better to keep > > > >> > > > > > “remote.log.storage.enable” > > > >> > > > > > > > > and > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > respective > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > configuration at topic level along > > > >> with > > > >> > cluster > > > >> > > > > > level. > > > >> > > > > > > > > It > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > will be > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > helpful in environments where few > > > >> topics > > > >> > are > > > >> > > > > > configured > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > with > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > local-storage and other topics are > > > >> > configured > > > >> > > > > > with > > > >> > > > > > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > storage. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Each topic-partition leader > > pushes its > > > >> > log > > > >> > > > > > segments > > > >> > > > > > > > > with > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > respective > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index files to remote whenever > > active > > > >> > log rolls > > > >> > > > > > over, > > > >> > > > > > > > > it > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > updates > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remote log index file for the > > > >> respective > > > >> > remote > > > >> > > > > > log > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > segment. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > second option is to add offset > > index > > > >> > files also > > > >> > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > > each > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > segment. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can serve consumer fetch requests > > for > > > >> old > > > >> > > > > > segments from > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > local log > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > segment instead of serving > > directly > > > >> from > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > > remote log > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > which may > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cause high latencies. There can be > > > >> > different > > > >> > > > > > > > > strategies in > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > when > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remote segment is copied to a > > local > > > >> > segment. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is “ > > > >> > > > > > remote.log.manager.scheduler.interval.ms” > > > >> > > > > > > > > config > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > about? > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do followers sync > > > >> > RemoteLogSegmentIndex > > > >> > > > > > files? Do > > > >> > > > > > > > > they > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > request > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from leader replica? This looks > > to be > > > >> > important > > > >> > > > > > as the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > failed > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > over > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > leader should have > > > >> RemoteLogSegmentIndex > > > >> > > > > updated > > > >> > > > > > and > > > >> > > > > > > > > ready > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoid > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > high latencies in serving old data > > > >> > stored in > > > >> > > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > > > > logs. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Satish. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 10:42 PM > > Ryanne > > > >> > Dolan < > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ryannedo...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Harsha, makes sense. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryanne > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:53 PM > > > >> Harsha > > > >> > > > > > Chintalapani < > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ka...@harsha.io> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "I think you are saying that > > this > > > >> > enables > > > >> > > > > > > > > additional > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (potentially > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cheaper) > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > storage options without > > > >> *requiring* > > > >> > an > > > >> > > > > > existing ETL > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pipeline. “ > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " But it's not really a > > > >> replacement > > > >> > for the > > > >> > > > > > sort of > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > pipelines > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people build > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with Connect, Gobblin etc.” > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not. But also making an > > > >> > assumption > > > >> > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > > > > everyone > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > runs > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pipelines for storing raw > > Kafka > > > >> data > > > >> > into > > > >> > > > > > HDFS or > > > >> > > > > > > > > S3 is > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > also > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumption. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The aim of this KIP is to > > provide > > > >> > tiered > > > >> > > > > > storage as > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > whole > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > package > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > asking users to ship the data > > on > > > >> > their own > > > >> > > > > > using > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > existing > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ETL, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which means > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > running a consumer and > > maintaining > > > >> > those > > > >> > > > > > pipelines. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " My point was that, if you > > are > > > >> > already > > > >> > > > > > offloading > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > records in > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ETL > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pipeline, why do you need a > > new > > > >> > pipeline > > > >> > > > > > built > > > >> > > > > > > > > into the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broker > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ship the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same data to the same place?” > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you said its ETL pipeline, > > > >> which > > > >> > means > > > >> > > > > > users of > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > these > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pipelines > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading the data from broker > > and > > > >> > > > > > transforming its > > > >> > > > > > > > > state > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > storing it > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somewhere. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point of this KIP is > > store log > > > >> > segments > > > >> > > > > > as it > > > >> > > > > > > > > is > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > without > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > their structure so that we > > can use > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > > existing > > > >> > > > > > > > > offset > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to look > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it up when the consumer needs > > to > > > >> > read old > > > >> > > > > > data. > > > >> > > > > > > > > When > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > you > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > do > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > load > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it via > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your existing pipelines you > > are > > > >> > reading the > > > >> > > > > > topic > > > >> > > > > > > > > as a > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > whole > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn’t guarantee that you’ll > > > >> > produce this > > > >> > > > > > data > > > >> > > > > > > > > back > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > into > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > HDFS > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > S3 in the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same order and who is going to > > > >> > generate the > > > >> > > > > > Index > > > >> > > > > > > > > files > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > again. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "So you'd end up with one of > > > >> 1)cold > > > >> > > > > segments > > > >> > > > > > are > > > >> > > > > > > > > only > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > useful > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka; 2) > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you have the same data > > written to > > > >> > HDFS/etc > > > >> > > > > > twice, > > > >> > > > > > > > > once > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and once > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for everything else, in two > > > >> separate > > > >> > > > > formats” > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are talking two different > > use > > > >> > cases. If > > > >> > > > > > > > > someone is > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > storing > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > raw > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > data > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out of Kafka for long term > > access. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By storing the data as it is > > in > > > >> HDFS > > > >> > though > > > >> > > > > > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > > > > will > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > solve > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > issue. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They do not need to run > > another > > > >> > pipe-line > > > >> > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > ship > > > >> > > > > > > > > these > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > logs. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If they are running pipelines > > to > > > >> > store in > > > >> > > > > > HDFS in a > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > different > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > format, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thats a different use case. > > May be > > > >> > they are > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > transforming > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logs to ORC > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so that they can query through > > > >> > Hive. Once > > > >> > > > > > you > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > transform > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > log > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > segment it > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > does loose its ability to use > > the > > > >> > existing > > > >> > > > > > offset > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > index. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Main objective here not to > > change > > > >> the > > > >> > > > > > existing > > > >> > > > > > > > > protocol > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > still > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be able > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to write and read logs from > > remote > > > >> > storage. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Harsha > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2019, 2:53 PM -0800, > > > >> Ryanne > > > >> > > > > Dolan < > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ryannedo...@gmail.com > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Harsha, makes sense > > for > > > >> the > > > >> > most > > > >> > > > > > part. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tiered storage is to get > > away > > > >> > from this > > > >> > > > > > and > > > >> > > > > > > > > make > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > this > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transparent to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are saying that > > this > > > >> > enables > > > >> > > > > > > > > additional > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (potentially > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cheaper) > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > storage options without > > > >> > *requiring* an > > > >> > > > > > existing > > > >> > > > > > > > > ETL > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pipeline. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But it's > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really a replacement for the > > > >> sort > > > >> > of > > > >> > > > > > pipelines > > > >> > > > > > > > > people > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > build > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Connect, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gobblin etc. My point was > > that, > > > >> if > > > >> > you > > > >> > > > > are > > > >> > > > > > > > > already > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > offloading > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > records in > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ETL pipeline, why do you > > need a > > > >> new > > > >> > > > > > pipeline > > > >> > > > > > > > > built > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > into the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > broker to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ship > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the same data to the same > > > >> place? I > > > >> > think > > > >> > > > > > in most > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > cases > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be an > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > additional pipeline, not a > > > >> > replacement, > > > >> > > > > > because > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > segments > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > written to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cold storage won't be useful > > > >> > outside > > > >> > > > > > Kafka. So > > > >> > > > > > > > > you'd > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > end up > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cold segments are only > > useful to > > > >> > Kafka; > > > >> > > > > 2) > > > >> > > > > > you > > > >> > > > > > > > > have > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > same > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > data written > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to HDFS/etc twice, once for > > > >> Kafka > > > >> > and > > > >> > > > > once > > > >> > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > everything > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > else, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in two > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate formats; 3) you use > > > >> your > > > >> > > > > existing > > > >> > > > > > ETL > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > pipeline and > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > read > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cold > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > data > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directly. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To me, an ideal solution > > would > > > >> let > > > >> > me > > > >> > > > > spool > > > >> > > > > > > > > segments > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to any > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sink > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like, and then let > > Kafka > > > >> > clients > > > >> > > > > > > > > seamlessly > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > access > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cold > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > data. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today I can do that in the > > > >> client, > > > >> > but > > > >> > > > > > ideally > > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > broker > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do it for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me via some HDFS/Hive/S3 > > plugin. > > > >> > The KIP > > > >> > > > > > seems to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > accomplish > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that -- just > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without leveraging anything > > I've > > > >> > > > > currently > > > >> > > > > > got in > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > place. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryanne > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 3:34 > > PM > > > >> > Harsha < > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ka...@harsha.io > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eric, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your questions. > > > >> > Answers are > > > >> > > > > > in-line > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The high-level design > > seems > > > >> to > > > >> > > > > indicate > > > >> > > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > > > > all > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > of > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when and > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how to copy log segments > > to > > > >> > remote > > > >> > > > > > storage > > > >> > > > > > > > > lives in > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > RLM > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class. The > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default implementation is > > then > > > >> > HDFS > > > >> > > > > > specific > > > >> > > > > > > > > with > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > additional > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementations being > > left to > > > >> the > > > >> > > > > > community. > > > >> > > > > > > > > This > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > seems > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it would > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > require anyone > > implementing a > > > >> > new RLM > > > >> > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > also > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > re-implement > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when to ship data to > > remote > > > >> > storage." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RLM will be responsible > > for > > > >> > shipping > > > >> > > > > log > > > >> > > > > > > > > segments > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > and it > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > decide > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a log segment is ready to > > be > > > >> > shipped > > > >> > > > > > over. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once a Log Segement(s) are > > > >> > identified > > > >> > > > > as > > > >> > > > > > rolled > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > over, RLM > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > delegate > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this responsibility to a > > > >> > pluggable > > > >> > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > > > > storage > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Users who > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are looking add their own > > > >> > > > > implementation > > > >> > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > enable > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > other > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > storages all > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need to do is to > > implement the > > > >> > copy and > > > >> > > > > > read > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > mechanisms > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > re-implement RLM itself. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Would it not be better > > for > > > >> the > > > >> > Remote > > > >> > > > > > Log > > > >> > > > > > > > > Manager > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation to be > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-configurable, and > > instead > > > >> > have an > > > >> > > > > > > > > interface for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remote > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > storage > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layer? That way the > > "when" of > > > >> > the logic > > > >> > > > > > is > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > consistent > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > across > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementations and it's > > only > > > >> a > > > >> > matter > > > >> > > > > of > > > >> > > > > > > > > "how," > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > similar > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Streams > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StateStores are managed." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's possible that we can > > RLM > > > >> > > > > > > > > non-configurable. But > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release and to keep the > > > >> backward > > > >> > > > > > compatibility > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we want to make this > > > >> > configurable and > > > >> > > > > > for any > > > >> > > > > > > > > users > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > who > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not be > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interested in having the > > > >> > LogSegments > > > >> > > > > > shipped to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > remote, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worry about this. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ryanne, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your questions. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "How could this be used to > > > >> > leverage > > > >> > > > > fast > > > >> > > > > > > > > key-value > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > stores, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > e.g. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couchbase, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can serve individual > > > >> > records but > > > >> > > > > > maybe > > > >> > > > > > > > > not > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > entire > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > segments? Or > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea to only support > > writing > > > >> and > > > >> > > > > fetching > > > >> > > > > > > > > entire > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > segments? > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sense to support both?" > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > LogSegment once its rolled > > > >> over > > > >> > are > > > >> > > > > > immutable > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > objects and > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the current structure of > > > >> > LogSegments > > > >> > > > > and > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > corresponding > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Index > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > files. It > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be easy to copy the whole > > > >> > segment as it > > > >> > > > > > is, > > > >> > > > > > > > > instead > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > re-reading each > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > file > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and use a key/value store. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Instead of defining a > > new > > > >> > interface > > > >> > > > > > and/or > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > mechanism to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ETL > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > segment > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > files > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from brokers to cold > > storage, > > > >> > can we > > > >> > > > > just > > > >> > > > > > > > > leverage > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > itself? In > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular, we can > > already ETL > > > >> > records > > > >> > > > > > to HDFS > > > >> > > > > > > > > via > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Connect, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gobblin > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc -- we really just > > need a > > > >> way > > > >> > for > > > >> > > > > > brokers to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > read > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > records > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > back. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm wondering whether the > > new > > > >> > API could > > > >> > > > > > be > > > >> > > > > > > > > limited > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fetch, and > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing ETL pipelines > > could > > > >> be > > > >> > more > > > >> > > > > > easily > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > leveraged. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example, if > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already have an ETL > > pipeline > > > >> > from Kafka > > > >> > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > HDFS, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > you > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > could > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > leave that > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > place and just tell Kafka > > how > > > >> to > > > >> > read > > > >> > > > > > these > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > records/segments > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from cold > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > storage when necessary." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is pretty much what > > > >> > everyone does > > > >> > > > > > and it > > > >> > > > > > > > > has > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > additional > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overhead > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of keeping these pipelines > > > >> > operating > > > >> > > > > and > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > monitoring. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's proposed in the > > KIP is > > > >> > not ETL. > > > >> > > > > > It's > > > >> > > > > > > > > just > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > looking > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logs > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are written and rolled > > over to > > > >> > copy the > > > >> > > > > > file > > > >> > > > > > > > > as it > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > is. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Each new topic needs to be > > > >> added > > > >> > (sure > > > >> > > > > > we can > > > >> > > > > > > > > do so > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > via > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wildcard or > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another mechanism) but new > > > >> > topics need > > > >> > > > > > to be > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > onboard > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ship > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the data > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remote storage through a > > > >> > traditional > > > >> > > > > ETL > > > >> > > > > > > > > pipeline. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once the data lands > > somewhere > > > >> > like > > > >> > > > > > HDFS/HIVE > > > >> > > > > > > > > etc.. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Users > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to write > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > another processing line to > > > >> > re-process > > > >> > > > > > this data > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > similar > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they are > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing it in their Stream > > > >> > processing > > > >> > > > > > pipelines. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Tiered > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > storage > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is to get > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > away from this and make > > this > > > >> > > > > transparent > > > >> > > > > > to the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > user. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > They > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't need > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > run another ETL process to > > > >> ship > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > logs. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "I'm wondering if we could > > > >> just > > > >> > add > > > >> > > > > > support for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > loading > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > segments from > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remote URIs instead of > > from > > > >> > file, i.e. > > > >> > > > > > via > > > >> > > > > > > > > plugins > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > s3://, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hdfs:// > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect less broker > > logic > > > >> would > > > >> > > > > change > > > >> > > > > > in > > > >> > > > > > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > case -- > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > broker > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't necessarily care > > if > > > >> it > > > >> > reads > > > >> > > > > > from > > > >> > > > > > > > > file:// > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > or > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > s3:// > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > load a > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > given > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > segment." > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this is what we are > > > >> > discussing in > > > >> > > > > > KIP. We > > > >> > > > > > > > > are > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > leaving > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > details > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > loading segments to RLM > > read > > > >> part > > > >> > > > > > instead of > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > directly > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exposing > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this in > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Broker. This way we can > > keep > > > >> the > > > >> > > > > current > > > >> > > > > > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > > > > code > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > as it > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changing the assumptions > > > >> around > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > local > > > >> > > > > > > > > disk. Let > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > RLM > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remote storage part. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Harsha > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019, at > > 12:54 > > > >> PM, > > > >> > > > > Ryanne > > > >> > > > > > Dolan > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Harsha, Sriharsha, > > Suresh, a > > > >> > couple > > > >> > > > > > thoughts: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - How could this be > > used to > > > >> > leverage > > > >> > > > > > fast > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > key-value > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stores, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > e.g. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couchbase, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which can serve > > individual > > > >> > records > > > >> > > > > but > > > >> > > > > > maybe > > > >> > > > > > > > > not > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > entire > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > segments? Or > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea to only support > > writing > > > >> > and > > > >> > > > > > fetching > > > >> > > > > > > > > entire > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > segments? > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sense to support both? > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Instead of defining a > > new > > > >> > interface > > > >> > > > > > and/or > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > mechanism > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ETL segment > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > files > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from brokers to cold > > > >> storage, > > > >> > can we > > > >> > > > > > just > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > leverage > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > itself? In > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular, we can > > already > > > >> ETL > > > >> > > > > records > > > >> > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > HDFS > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > via > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Connect, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gobblin > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc -- we really just > > need a > > > >> > way for > > > >> > > > > > brokers > > > >> > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > read > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > records > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > back. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm wondering whether > > the > > > >> new > > > >> > API > > > >> > > > > > could be > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > limited > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fetch, and > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing ETL pipelines > > could > > > >> > be more > > > >> > > > > > easily > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > leveraged. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already have an ETL > > pipeline > > > >> > from > > > >> > > > > > Kafka to > > > >> > > > > > > > > HDFS, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > leave > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that in > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > place and just tell > > Kafka > > > >> how > > > >> > to read > > > >> > > > > > these > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > records/segments > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cold > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > storage when necessary. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - I'm wondering if we > > could > > > >> > just add > > > >> > > > > > support > > > >> > > > > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > loading > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > segments > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > remote URIs instead of > > from > > > >> > file, > > > >> > > > > i.e. > > > >> > > > > > via > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > plugins > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > s3://, hdfs:// > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect less broker > > logic > > > >> > would > > > >> > > > > > change in > > > >> > > > > > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > case > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > broker > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't necessarily > > care if > > > >> > it reads > > > >> > > > > > from > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > file:// > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > s3:// > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to load a > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > given > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > segment. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Combining the previous > > two > > > >> > comments, > > > >> > > > > I > > > >> > > > > > can > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > imagine > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > URI > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resolution > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chain > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for segments. For > > example, > > > >> > first try > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> file:///logs/{topic}/{segment}.log, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then > > > >> > > > > > > > > s3://mybucket/{topic}/{date}/{segment}.log, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > etc, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > leveraging your > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing ETL > > pipeline(s). > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryanne > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at > > > >> 12:01 PM > > > >> > > > > Harsha > > > >> > > > > > < > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ka...@harsha.io> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are interested in > > > >> adding > > > >> > tiered > > > >> > > > > > storage > > > >> > > > > > > > > to > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > More > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > details > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about motivation and > > > >> design > > > >> > are in > > > >> > > > > > the > > > >> > > > > > > > > KIP. We > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > working > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > towards > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initial POC. Any > > feedback > > > >> or > > > >> > > > > > questions on > > > >> > > > > > > > > this > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > KIP > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > welcome. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Harsha > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
