Thanks Ning for the KIP. Having stronger guarantees when mirroring
data would be a nice improvement!

A few comments:
1. How does offset translation work with this new sink connector?
Should we also include a CheckpointSinkConnector?

2. Migrating to this new connector could be tricky as effectively the
Connect runtime needs to point to the other cluster, so its state
(stored in the __connect topics) is lost. Unfortunately there is no
easy way today to prime Connect with offsets. Not necessarily a
blocking issue but this should be described as I think the current
Migration section looks really optimistic at the moment

3. We can probably find a better name than "transaction.producer".
Maybe we can follow a similar pattern than Streams (which uses
"processing.guarantee")?

4. Transactional Ids used by the producer are generated based on the
task assignments. If there's a single task, if it crashes and restarts
it would still get the same id. Can this be an issue?

5. The logic in the KIP creates a new transaction every time put() is
called. Is there a performance impact?

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 4:58 PM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Awesome, this will be a huge advancement. I also want to point out that
> this KIP implements MirrorSinkConnector as well, finally, which is a very
> often requested missing feature in my experience.
>
> Ryanne
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 9:45 AM Ning Zhang <ning2008w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello, I wrote a KIP about MirrorMaker2 Exactly-once Semantics (EOS)
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-656%3A+MirrorMaker2+Exactly-once+Semantics
> > At the high-level, it resembles the idea of how HDFS Sink Connector
> > achieves EOS across clusters by managing and storing the consumer offsets
> > in an external persistent storage, but also leverages the current Kafka EOS
> > guarantee within a single cluster. I have done some experiments especially
> > for the failure cases and I am very appreciated for comments and feedback
> > on this KIP from bigger audience.
> >

Reply via email to