Hi Mickael, To be honest, I think it would be better not to make replica placement pluggable.
When I worked on the Hadoop Distributed Filesystem, we supported pluggable replica placement policies, and it never worked out well. Users would write plugin code that ran in a very sensitive context, and it would crash or perform poorly, causing problems which they often asked us to troubleshoot. The plugin interface became very complex because people kept adding stuff, and nothing could be removed because it would break API compatibility. Our advice to users was always not to do this, but to do placement on the client side if they really wanted to control placement. In general I think we made a mistake by creating that API at all, and we should have just provided more configuration knobs for placement instead. (We did add a few such knobs over time, and they were much better at solving people's problems than the placement API...) The reality is that in order to do a good job with replica placement, your code needs to be very well integrated with the rest of the system. As you said, you need to know about what other partitions and brokers exist. This information can be quite large, if you have a large cluster, and it is constantly changing. More than that, if you want to do better than the current built-in policy, you need additional information like metrics about how much load each broker is under, how much disk space it has, reads vs. writes, etc. etc. If you want to treat some nodes specially, you need a place to store that metadata. I think people who want to customize this would be better off forking. If we are absolutely convinced we want to do this, we should at least mark any internal classes we're exposing here as Evolving, rather than Stable, so that we can change them at will. Basically not give a compatibility guarantee for this. best, Colin On Thu, Nov 26, 2020, at 08:47, Mickael Maison wrote: > Thanks Gwen for following up. > > With this extra bit of context, David's comments make more sense. > > If we move the replica placement plugin to the controller, I think > most of the API can stay the same. However, as David mentioned, > Cluster may be problematic. > In a replica placement plugin, you'd typically want to retrieve the > list of brokers and the list of partitions (including leader and > replicas) so it should not be too hard to come up with a new interface > instead of using Cluster. > > But until KIP-631 is done, new types used for metadata in the > controller are not known. So I wonder if we need to wait for that KIP > before we can make further progress here or if we should be fine > having a pretty generic Metadata interface. > > Maybe Colin/Ismael can comment and advise us here? > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:47 PM Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > Michael, > > > > I talked a bit to Colin and Ismael offline and got some clarity about > > KIP-500. Basically, replica placement requires an entire metadata map > > - all the placements of all replicas. Since one of the goals of > > KIP-500 is to go to 1M or even 10M partitions on the cluster, this > > will be a rather large map. Since brokers normally don't need to know > > all the placements (they just need to know about the subset of > > replicas that they lead or follow), the idea is to keep this map on > > the controller only. Which means that the replica placement plugin > > will ideally be on the controller too. This also has a nice side > > benefit - since we will be able to run the controller quorum on a > > separate set of machines, we'll be able to replace the replica > > placement plugin by updating 3-5 controller nodes, not the entire > > cluster. > > > > Gwen > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 4:54 AM Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > I think using updateClusterMetadata() like in ClientQuotaCallback is a > > > great idea. I've updated the KIP accordingly. > > > > > > As mentioned, computing assignments for the full batch of > > > topics/partitions was considered but it made the logic in AdminManager > > > really complicated. For the initial use cases this KIP is targetting, > > > it felt simpler and acceptable to compute assignments one topic at a > > > time. > > > > > > Cluster is already used in other APIs, like ClientQuotaCallback so I > > > think it makes sense to reuse it here. > > > > > > I'm not fully up to date with the latest advances on KIP-500, but like > > > Gwen, I'm not sure we'd want to move that logic into the Controller. > > > This KIP is keeping the metadata creation in AdminManager and just > > > making the logic pluggable. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 3:56 PM Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > Why would the replica placement logic run in the controller rather than > > > > in > > > > the AdminManager? > > > > > > > > My understanding, and correct me if I got it wrong, is that we are > > > > aiming > > > > at better separation of concerns. The controller job will be managing > > > > consensus and consistency of metadata, but creating the metadata itself > > > > will be in the AdminManager. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 5:31 AM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Mickael, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. It is an interesting one. > > > > > > > > > > I imagine that custom assignors may use a rather complex model of the > > > > > cluster in order > > > > > to be able to allocate partitions in smarter ways. For instance, one > > > > > may > > > > > use the distribution > > > > > of leaders in the cluster to allocate the new leaders. With the > > > > > current > > > > > interface, that > > > > > means computing the distribution based on the Cluster received for > > > > > every > > > > > assignment > > > > > request. That could become pretty inefficient in clusters with a large > > > > > number of nodes > > > > > and/or partitions. That could become even worse if the model is more > > > > > complicated. > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if you have thought about this or experienced this with your > > > > > prototype? > > > > > > > > > > Have you considered going with an approach à la ClientQuotaCallback > > > > > where > > > > > the plugin > > > > > is updated when the Cluster has changed? That would allow to keep an > > > > > internal model > > > > > ready. Another way would be to use batching as suggested as it would > > > > > allow > > > > > to amortize > > > > > the cost of building a model for the current request/user. > > > > > > > > > > I also wonder if using Cluster is a good idea here. With KIP-500, I > > > > > can > > > > > imagine that this > > > > > plugin will run in the controller directly instead of running in the > > > > > AdminManager as today. > > > > > In this case, we could obviously continue to build that Cluster > > > > > object but > > > > > we may have > > > > > better ways. Therefore, I wonder if having an interface to represent > > > > > the > > > > > cluster may be > > > > > better from an evolution perspective. Have you considered this? > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 12:10 PM Mickael Maison > > > > > <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > If I don't see additional feedback in the next few days, I'll start > > > > > > a > > > > > vote. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 6:29 PM Mickael Maison > > > > > > <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've updated the KIP to reflect the latest discussions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom, > > > > > > > 2) Updated > > > > > > > 4) I decided against switching to a "batch interface" and added > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > reasons in the Rejected Alternatives section > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please take a look and let me know if you have any feedback. > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:43 AM Mickael Maison < > > > > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Efe, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > > > We also need to assign replicas when adding partitions to an > > > > > > > > existing > > > > > > > > topic. This is why I choose to use a list of partition ids. > > > > > > > > Otherwise > > > > > > > > we'd need the number of partitions and the starting partition > > > > > > > > id. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me know if you have more questions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 2:16 AM Efe Gencer > > > > > <agen...@linkedin.com.invalid> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mickael, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! > > > > > > > > > A call to an external system, e.g. Cruise Control, in the > > > > > > implementation of the provided interface can indeed help with the > > > > > > initial > > > > > > assignment of partitions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am curious why the proposed > > > > > > `ReplicaAssignor#assignReplicasToBrokers` receives a list of > > > > > > partition > > > > > ids > > > > > > as opposed to the number of partitions to create the topic with? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you clarify if this API is expected to be used (1) only > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > new topics or (2) also for existing topics? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > Efe > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > From: Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:43 AM > > > > > > > > > To: dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-660: Pluggable ReplicaAssignor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Tom for the feedback! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. If the data returned by the ReplicaAssignor implementation > > > > > > > > > does > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > match that was requested, we'll also throw a > > > > > ReplicaAssignorException > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Good point, I'll update the KIP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. The KIP mentions an error code associated with > > > > > > > > > ReplicaAssignorException: REPLICA_ASSIGNOR_FAILED > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. (I'm naming your last question 4.) I spent some time > > > > > > > > > looking at > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > Initially I wanted to follow the model from the topic > > > > > > > > > policies. But > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > you said, computing assignments for the whole batch may be > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > desirable and also avoids incrementally updating the cluster > > > > > > > > > state. > > > > > > > > > The logic in AdminManager is very much centered around doing 1 > > > > > topic > > > > > > > > > at a time but as far as I can tell we should be able to > > > > > > > > > update it > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > compute assignments for the whole batch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll play a bit more with 4. and I'll update the KIP in the > > > > > > > > > next > > > > > few > > > > > > days > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:29 AM Tom Bentley > > > > > > > > > <tbent...@redhat.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mickael, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A few thoughts about the ReplicaAssignor contract: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. What happens if a ReplicaAssignor impl returns a Map > > > > > > > > > > where > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > assignments don't meet the given replication factor? > > > > > > > > > > 2. Fixing the signature of assignReplicasToBrokers() as you > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > would make > > > > > > > > > > it hard to pass extra information in the future (e.g. maybe > > > > > > someone comes > > > > > > > > > > up with a use case where passing the clientId would be > > > > > > > > > > needed) > > > > > > because it > > > > > > > > > > would require the interface be changed. If you factored all > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > parameters > > > > > > > > > > into some new type then the signature could be > > > > > > > > > > assignReplicasToBrokers(RequiredReplicaAssignment) and > > > > > > > > > > adding any > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > properties to RequiredReplicaAssignment wouldn't break the > > > > > > contract. > > > > > > > > > > 3. When an assignor throws RepliacAssignorException what > > > > > > > > > > error > > > > > > code will be > > > > > > > > > > returned to the client? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, this sentence got me thinking: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If multiple topics are present in the request, > > > > > > > > > > > AdminManager > > > > > will > > > > > > update > > > > > > > > > > the Cluster object so the ReplicaAssignor class has access > > > > > > > > > > to the > > > > > > up to > > > > > > > > > > date cluster metadata. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Previously I've looked at how we can improve Kafka's > > > > > > > > > > pluggable > > > > > > policy > > > > > > > > > > support to pass the more of the cluster state to policy > > > > > > implementations. A > > > > > > > > > > similar problem exists there, but the more cluster state > > > > > > > > > > you pass > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > harder it is to incrementally change it as you iterate > > > > > > > > > > through > > > > > the > > > > > > topics > > > > > > > > > > to be created/modified. This likely isn't a problem here > > > > > > > > > > and now, > > > > > > but it > > > > > > > > > > could limit any future changes to the pluggable assignors. > > > > > > > > > > Did > > > > > you > > > > > > consider > > > > > > > > > > the alternative of the assignor just being passed a Set of > > > > > > assignments? > > > > > > > > > > That means you can just pass the cluster state as it exists > > > > > > > > > > at > > > > > the > > > > > > time. It > > > > > > > > > > also gives the implementation more information to work with > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > find more > > > > > > > > > > optimal assignments. For example, it could perform a bin > > > > > > > > > > packing > > > > > > type > > > > > > > > > > assignment which found a better optimum for the whole > > > > > > > > > > collection > > > > > > of topics > > > > > > > > > > than one which was only told about all the topics in the > > > > > > > > > > request > > > > > > > > > > sequentially. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise this looks like a valuable feature to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 6:19 PM Robert Barrett < > > > > > > bob.barr...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Mickael, I think adding the new Exception resolves > > > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > concerns. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:47 AM Mickael Maison < > > > > > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Robert and Ryanne for the feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ReplicaAssignor implementations can throw an exception > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > indicate an > > > > > > > > > > > > assignment can't be computed. This is already what the > > > > > current > > > > > > round > > > > > > > > > > > > robin assignor does. Unfortunately at the moment, there > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > no > > > > > > generic > > > > > > > > > > > > error codes if it fails, it's either INVALID_PARTITIONS, > > > > > > > > > > > > INVALID_REPLICATION_FACTOR or worse > > > > > > > > > > > > UNKNOWN_SERVER_ERROR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I think it would be nice to introduce a new > > > > > Exception/Error > > > > > > code to > > > > > > > > > > > > cover any failures in the assignor and avoid > > > > > > UNKNOWN_SERVER_ERROR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've updated the KIP accordingly, let me know if you > > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > more > > > > > > questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 4:49 PM Ryanne Dolan < > > > > > > ryannedo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Mickael, the KIP makes sense to me, esp for > > > > > > > > > > > > > cases > > > > > > where an > > > > > > > > > > > > external > > > > > > > > > > > > > system (like cruise control or an operator) knows more > > > > > about > > > > > > the target > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster state than the broker does. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryanne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 10:46 AM Mickael Maison < > > > > > > > > > > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've created KIP-660 to make the replica assignment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic > > > > > > pluggable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwiki.apache.org%2Fconfluence%2Fdisplay%2FKAFKA%2FKIP-660%253A%2BPluggable%2BReplicaAssignor&data=02%7C01%7Cagencer%40linkedin.com%7Ca156bf97031b4100b62d08d866293434%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637371674445085863&sdata=Cz1u3y1M%2BH5dFIx%2BHkQwugN%2FqTH1ugjXaaBhbToCkDM%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please take a look and let me know if you have any > > > > > > feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Gwen Shapira > > Engineering Manager | Confluent > > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > Follow us: Twitter | blog >
