Hello John / Sophie: With this config removed, would the assignor always tries to to achieve the "perfect balance" (of course, it may be a sub-optimal local plateau) or there's an internal hard-coded factor to still retain some satisfying threshold?
Guozhang On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 9:23 AM John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > We originally proposed that config to allow us to skip migrating tasks if > the current balance is “good enough”. But during implementation, we became > concerned that supporting this option increased code complexity, and it’s > also an extra concept for users to have to learn. > > To keep the new balancing system simpler both internally and externally, > we’d like to drop it from the API for now, with the idea of adding it later > if needed. > > Does that seem reasonable? > > Thanks, > John > > On Fri, May 1, 2020, at 14:18, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > Can you elaborate why to remove it? > > > > On 5/1/20 11:29 AM, Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote: > > > Hey all, > > > > > > We'd like to make a slight modification to the proposal in this KIP and > > > remove > > > the *balance.factor* config. We will update the KIP accordingly. > Please let > > > us know > > > if you have any concerns. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Sophie > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:48 PM John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > >> Hello all, > > >> > > >> After a long hiatus, I've just realized that I'm now able to upgrade > my > > >> non-binding support to a binding +1 for KIP-441. > > >> > > >> This brings the vote tally to: > > >> 3 binding +1s: Guozhang, Bill, and myself > > >> 3 non-binding +1s: Bruno, Vinoth, and Sophie > > >> > > >> Since the vote has been open for at least 72 hours, the KIP is > accepted. > > >> > > >> Thanks all, > > >> -John > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 21:02 PM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > >>> Hey all, > > >>> > > >>> Now that the 2.4 release storm is over, I'd like to bump this vote > > >> thread. > > >>> > > >>> Currently, we have two binding +1s (Guozhang and Bill), and four > > >>> non-binding ones (Bruno, Vinoth, Sophie, and myself), and no vetoes. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> -John > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:54 PM Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> +1 (binding) > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman < > > >> sop...@confluent.io> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> +1 (non-binding) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar < > > >> vchan...@confluent.io> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> +1 (non-binding). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:46 AM Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io > > > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> +1 (non-binding) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Guozhang Wang < > > >> wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> +1 (binding). > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> > > >> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Hello, all, > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on KIP-441, > > >>>>>>>>> to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. > > >>>>>>>>> Please cast your votes! > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>>>> -John > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>> -- Guozhang > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Attachments: > > * signature.asc > -- -- Guozhang
