Thanks for the explanation John.
Guozhang On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 7:10 PM John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Guozhang, > > Ah, good question. Yes, the assignor will always now try to achieve a > perfect balance. This was also the proposed default in the KIP before. The > config would have allowed users to relax the search for perfection. > > This is actually one of our motivations now to remove it. We feel it’s > simpler to reason about the behavior of the system if you know it’s always > going to produce a balanced assignment. > > Thanks, > John > > On Sun, May 3, 2020, at 19:03, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > 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 > > > -- -- Guozhang
