Hi Chia-Ping,
Sorry for late reply and thanks for your feedback to make this KIP more
valuable.
After initial verification, I think this can do without large changes.
I have updated KIP, thanks a lot.
Best,
TaiJuWu
Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@apache.org> 於 2024年11月20日 週三 下午5:06寫道：
> hi TaiJuWu
>
> Is there a possibility to extend this KIP to include topic-level
> compression for the producer? This is another issue that prevents us from
> sharing producers across different threads, as it's common to use different
> compression types for different topics (data).
>
> Best,
> Chia-Ping
>
> On 2024/11/18 08:36:25 TaiJu Wu wrote:
> > Hi Chia-Ping,
> >
> > Thanks for your suggestions and feedback.
> >
> > Q1: I have updated this according your suggestions.
> > Q2: This is necessary change since there is a assumption about
> > *RecourdAccumulator
> > *that all records have same acks(e.g. ProducerConfig.acks) so we need to
> a
> > method to distinguish which acks belong to each Batch.
> >
> > Best,
> > TaiJuWu
> >
> > Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@apache.org> 於 2024年11月18日 週一 上午2:17寫道：
> >
> > > 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
> > > > >> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
