Thanks Feyman, I've looked at the update that you incorporated from Matthias and that LGTM too. I'm still +1 :)
Guozhang On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:18 AM John Roesler <j...@vvcephei.org> wrote: > Hey Feyman, > > Just to remove any ambiguity, I've been casually following the discussion, > I've just looked at the KIP document again, and I'm still +1 (binding). > > Thanks, > -John > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020, at 01:44, feyman2009 wrote: > > Hi, all > > KIP-571 has already collected 4 bind +1 (John, Guochang, Bill, > > Matthias) and 3 non-binding +1(Boyang, Sophie), I will mark it as > > approved and create a PR shortly. > > Thanks! > > > > Feyman > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 发件人：feyman2009 <feyman2...@aliyun.com.INVALID> > > 发送时间：2020年4月8日(星期三) 14:21 > > 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>; Boyang Chen <reluctanthero...@gmail.com> > > 主 题：回复：回复：回复：回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove > > members in StreamsResetter > > > > Hi Boyang, > > Thanks for reminding me of that! > > I'm not sure about the convention, I thought it would need to > > re-collect votes if the KIP has changed~ > > Let's leave the vote thread here for 2 days, if no objection, I > > will take it as approved and update the PR accordingly. > > > > Thanks! > > Feyman > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 发件人：Boyang Chen <reluctanthero...@gmail.com> > > 发送时间：2020年4月8日(星期三) 12:42 > > 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>; feyman2009 <feyman2...@aliyun.com> > > 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove > > members in StreamsResetter > > > > You should already get enough votes if I'm counting correctly > > (Guozhang, John, Matthias) > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 6:59 PM feyman2009 > > <feyman2...@aliyun.com.invalid> wrote: > > Hi, Boyang&Matthias > > I think Matthias's proposal makes sense, but we can use the admin > > tool for this scenario as Boyang mentioned or follow up later, so I > > prefer to keep this KIP unchanged to minimize the scope. > > Calling for vote ~ > > > > Thanks! > > Feyman > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 发件人：Boyang Chen <reluctanthero...@gmail.com> > > 发送时间：2020年4月8日(星期三) 02:15 > > 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove > > members in StreamsResetter > > > > Hey Feyman, > > > > I think Matthias' suggestion is optional, and we could just use admin > tool > > to remove single static members as well. > > > > Boyang > > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 11:00 AM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > Would you mind to elaborate why we still need that > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > For static memership, the session timeout it usually set quite high. > > > This make scaling in an application tricky: if you shut down one > > > instance, no rebalance would happen until `session.timeout.ms` hits. > > > This is specific to Kafka Streams, because when a Kafka Stream > > client is > > > closed, it does _not_ send a `LeaveGroupRequest`. Hence, the > > > corresponding partitions would not be processed for a long time and > > > thus, fall back. > > > > > > Given that each instance will have a unique `instance.id` provided by > > > the user, we could allow users to remove the instance they want to > > > decommission from the consumer group without the need to wait for > > > `session.timeout.ms`. > > > > > > Hence, it's not an application reset scenario for which one wants to > > > remove all members, but a scaling-in scenario. For dynamic > > membership, > > > this issue usually does not occur because the `session.timeout.ms` is > > > set to a fairly low value and a rebalance would happen quickly after > > an > > > instance is decommissioned. > > > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > > > As said before, we may or may not include this in this KIP. It's up > > to > > > you if you want to address it or not. > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/7/20 7:12 AM, feyman2009 wrote: > > > > Hi, Matthias > > > > Thanks a lot! > > > > So you do not plan so support removing a _single static_ > > member via > > > `StreamsResetter`? > > > > => > > > > Would you mind to elaborate why we still need that if we > > are > > > able to batch remove active members with adminClient? > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > Feyman > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > 发件人：Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> > > > > 发送时间：2020年4月7日(星期二) 08:25 > > > > 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > > > 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove > > members > > > in StreamsResetter > > > > > > > > Overall LGTM. > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > So you do not plan so support removing a _single static_ member via > > > > `StreamsResetter`? We can of course still add this as a follow up > > but it > > > > might be nice to just add it to this KIP right away. Up to you if > > you > > > > want to include it or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/30/20 8:16 AM, feyman2009 wrote: > > > >> Hi, Boyang > > > >> Thanks a lot, that make sense, we should not expose member.id > > in > > > the MemberToRemove anymore, I have fixed it in the KIP. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Feyman > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> 发件人：Boyang Chen <reluctanthero...@gmail.com> > > > >> 发送时间：2020年3月29日(星期日) 01:45 > > > >> 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>; feyman2009 <feyman2...@aliyun.com> > > > >> 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove > > members in > > > StreamsResetter > > > >> > > > >> Hey Feyman, > > > >> > > > >> thanks for the update. I assume we would rely entirely on the > > internal > > > changes for `removeMemberFromGroup` by sending a DescribeGroup > > request > > > first. With that in mind, I don't think we need to add member.id to > > > MemberToRemove anymore, as it is only facing public where users will > > only > > > configure group.instance.id? > > > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 5:04 PM feyman2009 > > > <feyman2...@aliyun.com.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Bump, can anyone kindly take a look at the updated KIP-571? > > Thanks! > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> 发件人：feyman2009 <feyman2...@aliyun.com.INVALID> > > > >> 发送时间：2020年3月23日(星期一) 08:51 > > > >> 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > > >> 主 题：回复：回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove > > members in > > > StreamsResetter > > > >> > > > >> Hi, team > > > >> I have updated the KIP-571 according to our latest discussion > > > results, would you mind to take a look? Thanks! > > > >> > > > >> Feyman > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> 发件人：Boyang Chen <reluctanthero...@gmail.com> > > > >> 发送时间：2020年3月19日(星期四) 13:41 > > > >> 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>; feyman2009 > > <feyman2...@aliyun.com> > > > >> 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove > > members in > > > StreamsResetter > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for the insight Feyman. I personally feel adding another > > admin > > > client command is redundant, so picking option 1). The memberInfos > > struct > > > is internal and just used for result reference purposes. I think it > > could > > > still work even we overload with `removeAll` option, if that makes > > sense. > > > >> > > > >> Boyang > > > >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 8:51 PM feyman2009 > > > <feyman2...@aliyun.com.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Hi, team > > > >> Before going too far on the KIP update, I would like to > > hear your > > > opinions about how we would change the interface of AdminClient, the > > two > > > alternatives I could think of are: > > > >> 1) Extend adminClient.removeMembersFromConsumerGroup to > > support > > > remove all > > > >> As Guochang suggested, we could add some flag param in > > > RemoveMembersFromConsumerGroupOptions to indicated the "remove all" > > logic. > > > >> 2) Add a new API like > > > adminClient.removeAllMembersFromConsumerGroup(groupId, options) > > > >> > > > >> I think 1) will be more compact from the API perspective, > > but > > > looking at the code, I found that the if we are going to remove all, > > then > > > the > > RemoveMembersFromConsumerGroupResult#memberInfos/memberResult()/all() > > > should be changed accordingly, and they seem not that meaningful > > under the > > > "remove all" scenario. > > > >> > > > >> A minor thought about the > > > adminClient.removeMembersFromConsumerGroup API is: > > > >> Looking at some other deleteXX APIs, like deleteTopics, > > > deleteRecords, the results contains only a Map<A, Future<B>>, I > > think it's > > > enough to describe the related results, is it make sense that we may > > remove > > > memberInfos in RemoveMembersFromConsumerGroupResult ? This KIP has no > > > dependency on this if we choose alternative 2) > > > >> > > > >> Could you advise? Thanks! > > > >> > > > >> Feyman > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> 送时间：2020年3月15日(星期日) 10:11 > > > >> 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > > >> 主 题：回复：回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove > > members in > > > StreamsResetter > > > >> > > > >> Hi, all > > > >> Thanks a lot for your feedback! > > > >> According to the discussion, it seems we don't have some > > valid > > > use cases for removing specific dynamic members, I think it makes > > sense to > > > encapsulate the "get and delete" logic in adminClient. I will update > > the > > > KIP shortly! > > > >> > > > >> Thanks! > > > >> > > > >> Feyman > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> 发件人：Boyang Chen <reluctanthero...@gmail.com> > > > >> 发送时间：2020年3月14日(星期六) 00:39 > > > >> 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > > >> 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove > > members > > > in StreamsResetter > > > >> > > > >> Thanks Matthias and Guozhang for the feedback. I'm not worrying > > too > > > much > > > >> about the member.id exposure as we have done so in a couple of > > > areas. As > > > >> for the recommended admin client change, I think it makes sense > > in an > > > >> encapsulation perspective. Maybe I'm still a bit hesitant as we > > are > > > losing > > > >> the flexibility of closing only a subset of `dynamic members` > > > potentially, > > > >> but we could always get back and address it if some user feels > > > necessary to > > > >> have it. > > > >> > > > >> My short answer would be, LGTM :) > > > >> > > > >> Boyang > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:26 PM Guozhang Wang > > <wangg...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Hi Matthias, > > > >> > > > > >> > About the AdminClient param API: that's a great point here. I > > think > > > overall > > > >> > if users want to just "remove all members" they should not > > need to > > > first > > > >> > get all the member.ids themselves, but instead internally the > > admin > > > client > > > >> > can first issue a describe-group request to get all the > > member.ids, > > > and > > > >> > then use them in the next issued leave-group request, all > > > abstracted away > > > >> > from the users. With that in mind, maybe in > > > >> > RemoveMembersFromConsumerGroupOptions we can just introduce an > > > overloaded > > > >> > flag param besides "members" that indicate "remove all"? > > > >> > > > > >> > Guozhang > > > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 2:59 PM Matthias J. Sax > > <mj...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Feyman, > > > >> > > > > > >> > > some more comments/questions: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > The description of `LeaveGroupRequest` is clear but it's > > unclear > > > how > > > >> > > `MemberToRemove` should behave. Which parameter is required? > > > Which is > > > >> > > optional? What is the relationship between both. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > The `LeaveGroupRequest` description clearly states that > > > specifying a > > > >> > > `memberId` is optional if the `groupInstanceId` is > > provided. If > > > >> > > `MemberToRemove` applies the same pattern, it must be > > explicitly > > > defined > > > >> > > in the KIP (and explained in the JavaDocs of > > `MemberToRemove`) > > > because > > > >> > > we cannot expect that an admin-client users knows that > > internally > > > a > > > >> > > `LeaveGroupRequest` is used nor what the semantics of a > > > >> > > `LeaveGroupRequest` are. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > About Admin API: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > In general, I am also confused that we allow so specify a > > > `memberId` at > > > >> > > all, because the `memberId` is an internal id that is not > > really > > > exposed > > > >> > > to the user. Hence, from a AdminClient point of view, > > accepting a > > > >> > > `memberId` as input seems questionable to me? Of course, > > > `memberId` can > > > >> > > be collected via `describeConsumerGroups()` but it will > > return the > > > >> > > `memberId` of _all_ consumer in the group and thus how > > would a > > > user know > > > >> > > which member should be removed for a dynamic group (if an > > > individual > > > >> > > member should be removed)? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Hence, how can any user get to know the `memberId` of an > > > individual > > > >> > > client in a programtic way? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Also I am wondering in general, why the removal of single > > dynamic > > > member > > > >> > > is important? In general, I would expect a short > > > `session.timeout` for > > > >> > > dynamic groups and thus removing a specific member from the > > group > > > seems > > > >> > > not to be an important feature -- for static groups we > > expect a > > > long > > > >> > > `session.timeout` and a user can also identify individual > > clients > > > via > > > >> > > `groupInstandId`, hence the feature makes sense for this > > case and > > > is > > > >> > > straight forward to use. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > About StreamsResetter: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > For this case we just say "remove all members" and thus the > > > >> > > `describeConsumerGroup` approach works. However, it seems > > to be a > > > >> > > special case? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Or, if we expected that the "remove all members" use case > > is the > > > norm, > > > >> > > why can't we make a change admin-client to directly accept > > a ` > > > group.id`? > > > >> > > The admin-client can internal first do a > > `DescribeGroupRequest` > > > and > > > >> > > afterward corresponding `LeaveGroupRequest` -- i.e., > > instead of > > > building > > > >> > > this pattern in `StreamsResetter` we build it directly into > > > >> > `AdminClient`. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Last, for static group the main use case seems to be to > > remove an > > > >> > > individual member from the group but this feature is not > > covered > > > by the > > > >> > > KIP: I think using `--force` to remove all members makes > > sense, > > > but an > > > >> > > important second feature to remove an individual static > > member > > > would > > > >> > > require it's own flag to specify a single > > `group.instance.id`. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thoughts? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > -Matthias > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On 3/11/20 8:43 PM, feyman2009 wrote: > > > >> > > > Hi, Sophie > > > >> > > > For 1) Sorry, I found that my expression is kind of > > > misleading, > > > >> > > what I actually mean is: "if --force not specified, an > > exception > > > saying > > > >> > > there are still active members on broker side will be > > thrown and > > > >> > > suggesting using StreamsResetter with --force", I just > > updated > > > the KIP > > > >> > > page. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > For 2) > > > >> > > > I may also had some misleading expression > > previous, to > > > clarify > > > >> > : > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Also, it's more efficient to just send a single "clear the > > > group" > > > >> > > request vs sending a LeaveGroup > > > >> > > > request for every single member. What do you think? > > > >> > > > => the comparison is to send a single "clear the group" > > request > > > vs > > > >> > > sending a "get members" + a "remove members" request since > > the > > > >> > > adminClient.removeMembersFromConsumerGroup support batch > > removal. > > > We > > > >> > > don't need to send lots of leaveGroup requests for every > > single > > > member. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I can understand your point, but I think we could > > reuse > > > the > > > >> > > current > > > >> > > > adminClient.removeMembersFromConsumerGroup interface > > > effectively with > > > >> > > the KIP. > > > >> > > > What do you think? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks! > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Feyman > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> > > > 发件人：Sophie Blee-Goldman <sop...@confluent.io> > > > >> > > > 发送时间：2020年3月10日(星期二) 03:02 > > > >> > > > 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>; feyman2009 < > > > feyman2...@aliyun.com> > > > >> > > > 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove > > > >> > > members in StreamsResetter > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Hey Feyman, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > 1) Regarding point 2 in your last email, if I understand > > > correctly you > > > >> > > propose to change > > > >> > > > the current behavior of the reset tool when --force is not > > > specified, > > > >> > > and wait for (up to) > > > >> > > > the session timeout for all members to be removed. I'm > > not sure > > > we > > > >> > > should change this, > > > >> > > > especially now that we have a better way to handle the > > case > > > when the > > > >> > > group is not empty: > > > >> > > > we should continue to throw an exception and fail fast, > > but can > > > print > > > >> > > a message suggesting > > > >> > > > to use the new --force option to remove remaining group > > > members. Why > > > >> > > make users wait > > > >> > > > for the session timeout when we've just added a new > > feature > > > that means > > > >> > > they don't have to? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > 2) Regarding Matthias' question: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> I am really wondering, if for a static group, we should > > allow > > > users > > > >> > > toremove individual members? For a dynamic group this > > feature > > > would not > > > >> > > > make much sense IMHO, because the `memberId` is not know > > by the > > > user. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I think his point is similar to what I was trying to get > > at > > > earlier, > > > >> > > with the proposal to add a new > > > >> > > > #removeAllMembers API rather than an API to remove > > individual > > > members > > > >> > > according to their > > > >> > > > memberId. As he explained, removing based on memberId is > > likely > > > not > > > >> > > that useful in general. > > > >> > > > Also, it's not actually what we want to do here; maybe we > > > should avoid > > > >> > > adding a new API > > > >> > > > that we think may be useful in other contexts (remove > > individual > > > >> > > member based on memberId), > > > >> > > > and just add the API we actually need (remove all members > > from > > > group) > > > >> > > in this KIP? We can > > > >> > > > always add the "remove individual member by memberId" API > > at a > > > later > > > >> > > point, if it turns out to > > > >> > > > actually be requested for specific reasons? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Also, it's more efficient to just send a single "clear the > > > group" > > > >> > > request vs sending a LeaveGroup > > > >> > > > request for every single member. What do you think? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 1:41 AM feyman2009 > > > >> > > <feyman2...@aliyun.com.invalid> wrote: > > > >> > > > Hi, Matthias > > > >> > > > Thanks, I updated the KIP to mention the deprecated > > and > > > newly > > > >> > > added methods. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > 1. What happens is `groupInstanceId` is used for a > > dynamic > > > group? What > > > >> > > > happens if both parameters are specified? What happens if > > > `memberId` > > > >> > > > is specified for a static group? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > => my understanding is that the dynamic/static > > membership is > > > member > > > >> > > level other than group level, and I think above questions > > could be > > > >> > > answered by the "Leave Group Logic Change" section in > > KIP-345: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-345%3A+Introduce+static+membership+protocol+to+reduce+consumer+rebalances > > > >> > > , > > > >> > > this KIP stays consistent with KIP-345. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > 2. About the `--force` option. Currently, StreamsResetter > > > fails with > > > >> > an > > > >> > > > error if the consumer group is not empty. You state in > > your > > > KIP that: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > without --force, we need to wait for session timeout. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Is this an intended behavior change if `--force` is not > > used > > > or is the > > > >> > > > KIP description incorrect? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > => This is the intended behavior. For this part, I think > > there > > > are > > > >> > > two ways to go: > > > >> > > > 1) (the implicit way) Not introducing the new "--force" > > > option, with > > > >> > > this KIP, StreamsResetter will by default remove active > > > members(with > > > >> > > long session timeout configured) on broker side > > > >> > > > 2) (the explicit way) Introduce the new "--force" option, > > > users need > > > >> > > to explicitly specify --force to remove the active members. > > If > > > --force > > > >> > > not specified, the StreamsResetter behaviour is as previous > > > versions'. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I think the two alternatives above are both feasible, > > > personally I > > > >> > > prefer way 2. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > 3. For my own understanding: with the `--force` option, > > we > > > intend to > > > >> > get > > > >> > > > all `memberIds` and send a "remove member" request for > > each > > > with > > > >> > > > corresponding `memberId` to remove the member from the > > group > > > >> > > > (independent is the group is static or dynamic)? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > => Yeah, minor thing to mention is we will send the > > "remove > > > member" > > > >> > > request for each member(could be dynamic member or static > > member) > > > to > > > >> > > remove them from group > > > >> > > > for dynamic members, both "group.instance.id" and > > "member.id" > > > will be > > > >> > > specified > > > >> > > > for dynamic members, only "member.id" will be specified > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > 4. I am really wondering, if for a static group, we > > should > > > allow users > > > >> > > to > > > >> > > > remove individual members? For a dynamic group this > > feature > > > would not > > > >> > > > make much sense IMHO, because the `memberId` is not know > > by > > > the user. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > => KIP-345 introduced the batch removal feature for both > > static > > > >> > > member and dynamic member, my understanding is that "allow > > users > > > to > > > >> > > > remove individual members" could be useful for rolling > > bounce > > > and > > > >> > > scale down accoding to KIP-345. KafkaAdminClient currently > > only > > > support > > > >> > > static member removal and this KIP-571 enables dynamic > > member > > > removal > > > >> > > for it, which is also consistent with the broker side logic. > > > Users could > > > >> > > get the member.id (and group.instance.id if for static > > member) by > > > >> > > adminClient.describeConsumerGroups. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Furthermore, I don't have an assumption that a consumer > > group > > > should > > > >> > > contain only static or dynamic members, and I think KIP-345 > > and > > > this KIP > > > >> > > don't need to be based on this assumption. > > > >> > > > You could correct me if I have the wrong understanding :) > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks! > > > >> > > > Feyman > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> > > > 发件人：Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> > > > >> > > > 发送时间：2020年3月6日(星期五) 02:20 > > > >> > > > 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > > >> > > > 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove > > > >> > > members in StreamsResetter > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Feyman, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > thanks a lot for the KIP. Overall LGTM. I have a few more > > > comment and > > > >> > > > questions (sorry for the late reply): > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > The KIP mentions that some constructors will be > > deprecated. > > > Those > > > >> > should > > > >> > > > be listed explicitly. For example: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > public class MemberToRemove { > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > // deprecated methods > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > @Deprecated > > > >> > > > public MemberToRemove(String groupInstanceId); > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > // new methods > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > public MemberToRemove() > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > public MemberToRemove withGroupInstanceId(String > > > groupInstanceId) > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > public MemberToRemove withMemberId(String memberId) > > > >> > > > } > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > What happens is `groupInstanceId` is used for a dynamic > > group? > > > What > > > >> > > > happens if both parameters are specified? What happens if > > > `memberId` > > > >> > > > is specified for a static group? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > About the `--force` option. Currently, StreamsResetter > > fails > > > with an > > > >> > > > error if the consumer group is not empty. You state in > > your KIP > > > that: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> without --force, we need to wait for session timeout. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Is this an intended behavior change if `--force` is not > > used or > > > is the > > > >> > > > KIP description incorrect? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > For my own understanding: with the `--force` option, we > > intend > > > to get > > > >> > > > all `memberIds` and send a "remove member" request for > > each with > > > >> > > > corresponding `memberId` to remove the member from the > > group > > > >> > > > (independent is the group is static or dynamic)? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > I am really wondering, if for a static group, we should > > allow > > > users to > > > >> > > > remove individual members? For a dynamic group this > > feature > > > would not > > > >> > > > make much sense IMHO, because the `memberId` is not know > > by the > > > user. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > -Matthias > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On 3/5/20 7:15 AM, Bill Bejeck wrote: > > > >> > > >> Thanks for the KIP. +1 (binding). > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> -Bill > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 12:40 AM Guozhang Wang < > > > wangg...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >>> Thanks, +1 from me (binding). > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 9:39 PM feyman2009 < > > > feyman2...@aliyun.com> > > > >> > > >>> wrote: > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>>> Hi, Guozhang Thanks a lot for the advice, that make > > sense! I > > > >> > > >>>> have updated the KIP page with the operational steps of > > > >> > > >>>> StreamsResetter. > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> Thanks! Feyman > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > > 发件人：Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > >>>> 发送时间：2020年3月3日(星期二) 14:22 收件人：dev > > <dev@kafka.apache.org>; > > > >> > > >>>> feyman2009 <feyman2...@aliyun.com> 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：[Vote] > > > >> > > >>>> KIP-571: Add option to force remove members in > > > StreamsResetter > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> Hello Feyman, thanks for the proposal! > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> I read through the doc and overall it looks good to me. > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> One minor thing I'd still like to point out is that, > > the > > > >> > > >>>> "removeMembersFromConsumerGroup" only sends a > > leave-group > > > >> > > >>>> request to the coordinator to let it remove the member, > > > >> > > >>>> however, if the member is still there alive and > > running then > > > it > > > >> > > >>>> would soon be notified that it is no > > > >> > > >>> longer > > > >> > > >>>> a legal member of the group via heartbeats, and then > > > >> > > >>>> automatically tries > > > >> > > >>> to > > > >> > > >>>> re-join the group. So on the operational side, it is > > still > > > >> > > >>>> required that the following steps: > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> 1) first stop the consumers (of streams instances), > > wait > > > until > > > >> > > >>>> the shutdown is complete. 2) then use admin client in > > case > > > the > > > >> > > >>>> stopped consumers are still registered at the broker > > side and > > > >> > > >>>> we do not want to wait for session timeout. > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> Even with this KIP, people should still not skip step > > 1) > > > above, > > > >> > > >>>> since otherwise the consumers would re-connect and > > re-join > > > the > > > >> > > >>>> group > > > >> > > >>> immediately > > > >> > > >>>> still. > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> In your doc you've already mentioned "Furthermore, > > users > > > should > > > >> > > >>>> make sure all the stream applications are shutdown when > > > running > > > >> > > >>>> StreamsResetter > > > >> > > >>> with > > > >> > > >>>> --force, otherwise it might trigger unexpected > > rebalance. " > > > >> > > >>>> What I'd want to clarify is that no matter if "--force" > > > option > > > >> > > >>>> is enabled, this is > > > >> > > >>> always > > > >> > > >>>> the case that users should shutdown the streams > > instances > > > >> > > >>>> first, and then use the streams resetter :) > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> As long as that is clarified in the proposal > > documentation, > > > I'm > > > >> > > >>>> +1 on > > > >> > > >>> this > > > >> > > >>>> KIP. > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> Thanks again for the contribution, Guozhang > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:31 AM feyman2009 > > > >> > > >>>> <feyman2...@aliyun.com.invalid > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> wrote: Hi, John Sorry, I have mistaken the KIP approval > > > >> > > >>>> standard, anyway, I will > > > >> > > >>> start > > > >> > > >>>> the PR soon and waiting for more binding approvals. > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> Thanks! Feyman > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > > 发件人：John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org> > > > >> > > >>>> 发送时间：2020年3月2日(星期一) 22:00 收件人：dev > > > >> > > > <dev@kafka.apache.org> 主 > > > >> > > >>>> 题：Re: 回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove > > > members > > > >> > > >>>> in StreamsResetter > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> Hi Feyman, > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> Sorry, but we actually need 3 binding votes for the > > KIP to > > > >> > > >>>> pass. Please feel free to keep bumping the thread > > until some > > > >> > > >>>> more committers can take > > > >> > > >>> a > > > >> > > >>>> look. > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> By the way, you can totally start a PR, but we can’t > > merge it > > > >> > > >>>> until the KIP passes the vote. > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> Thanks! John > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, at 00:24, feyman2009 wrote: > > > >> > > >>>>> Hi,all Since currently we have 1 binding and two > > non-binding > > > >> > > >>>>> +1, I will update the KIP-571 as adopted and initiate > > a PR > > > >> > > >>>>> shortly > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> Thanks! Feyman > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > > 发件人：Sophie Blee-Goldman <sop...@confluent.io> > > > >> > > >>>>> 发送时间：2020年2月28日(星期五) 10:17 收件人：dev > > > >> > > > <dev@kafka.apache.org> 主 > > > >> > > >>>>> 题：Re: 回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove > > members > > > >> > > >>>>> in > > > >> > > >>>> StreamsResetter > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> Thanks for the KIP, +1 (non-binding) > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 12:40 PM Boyang Chen < > > > >> > > >>> reluctanthero...@gmail.com > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> Thanks Feyman, +1 (non-binding) > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:25 AM John Roesler > > > >> > > >>>>>> <vvcep...@apache.org> > > > >> > > >>>> wrote: > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal! > > > >> > > >>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> I'm +1 (binding) -John > > > >> > > >>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, at 19:41, feyman2009 wrote: > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Updated with the KIP link: > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-571%3A+Add+opti > > > >> > > > on+to+force+remove+members+in+StreamsResetter > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> 发件人：feyman2009 <feyman2...@aliyun.com.INVALID> 发送时 > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> 间：2020年2月27日(星期四) 09:38 收件人：dev > > <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> 主 题：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove > > members > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> in > > > >> > > >>>>>> StreamsResetter > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Hi, all I would like to start a vote on KIP-571: > > Add > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> option to force > > > >> > > >>>> remove > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> members in StreamsResetter . > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks! Feyman > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> -- -- Guozhang > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> -- -- Guozhang > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > -- Guozhang > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- -- Guozhang
