hi TaiJuWu
Q0:
`Format: topic.acks` the dot is acceptable character in topic naming, so maybe
we should reverse the format to "acks.${topic}" to get the acks of topic easily
Q1: `Return Map<Acks, List<ProducerBatch>> when
RecordAccumulator#drainBatchesForOneNode is called.`
this is weird to me, as all we need to do is pass `Map<String, Acks> to
`Sender` and make sure `Sender#sendProduceRequest` add correct acks to
ProduceRequest, right?
Best,
Chia-Ping
On 2024/11/15 05:12:33 TaiJu Wu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have updated the contents of this KIP
> Please take a look and let me know what you think.
>
> Thanks,
> TaiJuWu
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 2:21 PM TaiJu Wu <tjwu1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Thanks for your feeback and @Chia-Ping's help.
> > .
> > I also agree topic-level acks config is more reasonable and it can simply
> > the story.
> > When I try implementing record-level acks, I notice I don't have good idea
> > to avoid iterating batches for get partition information (need by
> > *RecordAccumulator#partitionChanged*).
> >
> > Back to the init question how can I handle different acks for batches:
> > First, we can attach *topic-level acks *to *RecordAccumulator#TopicInfo*.
> > Second, we can return *Map<Acks, List<ProducerBatch>>* when
> > *RecordAccumulator#drainBatchesForOneNode
> > *is called. In this step, we can propagate acks to *sender*.
> > Finally, we can get the acks info and group same acks into a
> > *List<ProducerBatch>>* for a node in *sender#sendProduceRequests*.
> >
> > If I missed something or there is any mistake, please let me know.
> > I will update this KIP later, thank your feedback.
> >
> > Best,
> > TaiJuWu
> >
> >
> > Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@apache.org> 於 2024年11月14日 週四 上午9:46寫道：
> >
> >> hi All
> >>
> >> This KIP is based on our use case where an edge application with many
> >> sensors wants to use a single producer to deliver ‘few but varied’ records
> >> with different acks settings. The reason for using a single producer is to
> >> minimize resource usage on edge devices with limited hardware capabilities.
> >> Currently, we use a producer pool to handle different acks values, which
> >> requires 3x producer instances. Additionally, this approach creates many
> >> idle producers if a sensor with a specific acks setting has no data for a
> >> while.
> >>
> >> I love David’s suggestion since the acks configuration is closely related
> >> to the topic. Maybe we can introduce an optional configuration in the
> >> producer to define topic-level acks, with the existing acks being the
> >> default for all topics. This approach is not only simple but also easy to
> >> understand and implement.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Chia-Ping
> >>
> >> On 2024/11/13 16:04:24 Andrew Schofield wrote:
> >> > Hi TaiJuWu,
> >> > I've been thinking for a while about this KIP before jumping into the
> >> discussion.
> >> >
> >> > I'm afraid that I don't think the approach in the KIP is the best,
> >> given the design
> >> > of the Kafka protocol in this area. Essentially, each Produce request
> >> contains
> >> > the acks value at the top level, and may contain records for many
> >> topics or
> >> > partitions. My point is that batching occurs at the level of a Produce
> >> request,
> >> > so changing the acks value between records will require a new Produce
> >> request
> >> > to be sent. There would likely be an efficiency penalty if this feature
> >> was used
> >> > heavily with the acks changing record by record.
> >> >
> >> > I can see that potentially an application might want different ack
> >> levels for
> >> > different topics, but I would be surprised if they use different ack
> >> levels within
> >> > the same topic. Maybe David's suggestion of defining the acks per topic
> >> > would be enough. What do you think?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Andrew
> >> > ________________________________________
> >> > From: David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io.INVALID>
> >> > Sent: 13 November 2024 15:31
> >> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org <dev@kafka.apache.org>
> >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]KIP-1107: Adding record-level acks for producers
> >> >
> >> > Hi TaiJuWu,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for the KIP.
> >> >
> >> > The motivation is not clear to me. Could you please elaborate a bit
> >> more on
> >> > it?
> >> >
> >> > My concern is that it adds a lot of complexity and the added value
> >> seems to
> >> > be low. Moreover, it will make reasoning about an application from the
> >> > server side more difficult because we can no longer assume that it
> >> writes
> >> > with the ack based on the config. Another issue is about the batching,
> >> how
> >> > do you plan to handle batches mixing records with different acks?
> >> >
> >> > An alternative approach may be to define the ack per topic. We could
> >> even
> >> > think about defining it on the server side as a topic config. I haven't
> >> > really thought about it but it may be something to explore a bit more.
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> > David
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:56 PM Frédérik Rouleau
> >> > <froul...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi TaiJuWu,
> >> > >
> >> > > I find this adding lot's of complexity and I am still not convinced
> >> by the
> >> > > added value. IMO creating a producer instance per ack level is not
> >> > > problematic and the behavior is clear for developers. What would be
> >> the
> >> > > added value of the proposed change ?
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 7:50 AM TaiJu Wu <tjwu1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi Fred and Greg,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks for your feedback and it really not straightforward but
> >> > > interesting!
> >> > > > There are some behavior I expect.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The current producer uses the *RecordAccumulator* to gather
> >> records, and
> >> > > > the sender thread sends them in batches. We can track each record’s
> >> > > > acknowledgment setting as it appends to the *RecordAccumulator*,
> >> allowing
> >> > > > the *sender *to group batches by acknowledgment levels and
> >> topicPartition
> >> > > > when processing.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regarding the statement, "Callbacks for records being sent to the
> >> same
> >> > > > partition are guaranteed to execute in order," this is ensured when
> >> > > > *max.inflight.request
> >> > > > *is set to 1. We can send records with different acknowledgment
> >> levels in
> >> > > > the order of acks-0, acks=1, acks=-1. Since we need to send batches
> >> with
> >> > > > different acknowledgment levels batches to the broker, the callback
> >> will
> >> > > > execute after each request is completed.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In response to, "If so, are low-acks records subject to head-of-line
> >> > > > blocking from high-acks records?," I believe an additional
> >> configuration
> >> > > is
> >> > > > necessary to control this behavior. We could allow records to be
> >> either
> >> > > > sync or async, though the callback would still execute after each
> >> batch
> >> > > > with varying acknowledgment levels completes. To measure behavior
> >> across
> >> > > > acknowledgment levels, we could also include acks in
> >> > > *ProducerIntercepor*.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Furthermore, before this KIP, a producer could only include one acks
> >> > > level
> >> > > > so sequence is premised. However, with this change, we can *ONLY*
> >> > > guarantee
> >> > > > the sequence within records of the same acknowledgment level
> >> because we
> >> > > may
> >> > > > send up to three separate requests to brokers.
> >> > > > Best,
> >> > > > TaiJuWu
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > TaiJu Wu <tjwu1...@gmail.com> 於 2024年11月6日 週三 上午10:01寫道：
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Hi Fred and Greg,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Apologies for the delayed response.
> >> > > > > Yes, you’re correct.
> >> > > > > I’ll outline the behavior I expect.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks for your feedback!
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Best,
> >> > > > > TaiJuWu
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Greg Harris <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid> 於 2024年11月6日 週三
> >> 上午9:48寫道：
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> Hi TaiJuWu,
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> Thanks for the KIP!
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> Can you explain in the KIP about the behavior when the number of
> >> acks
> >> > > is
> >> > > > >> different for individual records? I think the current description
> >> > > using
> >> > > > >> the
> >> > > > >> word "straightforward" does little to explain that, and may
> >> actually
> >> > > be
> >> > > > >> hiding some complexity.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> For example, the send() javadoc contains this: "Callbacks for
> >> records
> >> > > > >> being
> >> > > > >> sent to the same partition are guaranteed to execute in order."
> >> Is
> >> > > this
> >> > > > >> still true when acks vary for records within the same partition?
> >> > > > >> If so, are low-acks records subject to head-of-line-blocking from
> >> > > > >> high-acks
> >> > > > >> records? It seems to me that this feature is useful when acks is
> >> > > > specified
> >> > > > >> per-topic, but introduces a lot of edge cases that are
> >> underspecified.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> Thanks,
> >> > > > >> Greg
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 4:52 PM TaiJu Wu <tjwu1...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > Hi Chia-Ping,
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > Thanks for your feedback.
> >> > > > >> > I have updated KIP based on your suggestions.
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > Best,
> >> > > > >> > Stanley
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@apache.org> 於 2024年11月5日 週二 下午4:41寫道：
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > > hi TaiJuWu,
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> > > Q0: Could you please add getter (Short acks()) to "public
> >> > > interface"
> >> > > > >> > > section?
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> > > Q1: Could you please add RPC json reference to prove "been
> >> > > available
> >> > > > >> at
> >> > > > >> > > the RPC-level,"
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> > > Q2: Could you please add link to producer docs to prove
> >> "share a
> >> > > > >> single
> >> > > > >> > > producer instance across multiple threads"
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > > >> > > Chia-Ping
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> > > On 2024/11/05 01:28:36 吳岱儒 wrote:
> >> > > > >> > > > Hi all,
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > I open a KIP-1107: Adding record-level acks for producers
> >> > > > >> > > > <
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1107%3A++Adding+record-level+acks+for+producers
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > to
> >> > > > >> > > > reduce the limitation associated with reusing
> >> KafkaProducer.
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1107%3A++Adding+record-level+acks+for+producers
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > Feedbacks and suggestions are welcome.
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > >> > > > TaiJuWu
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
