Hi, Kamal, Thanks for the explanation. This change sounds good to me then.
Jun On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 10:31 AM Kamal Chandraprakash < kamal.chandraprak...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jun, > > Thanks for the review! I've made the addendum to this KIP about the remote > storage configs: > > > 13. Why are the defaults for remote.log.manager.copier.thread.pool.size > and > remote.log.manager.thread.pool.size different? > > We have 3 thread pools in remote log manager: > > a. remote.log.manager.thread.pool.size: handles the RLMFollowerTask > < > https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/apache/kafka/-/blob/core/src/main/java/kafka/log/remote/RemoteLogManager.java?L1454 > > > to read the highest-uploaded remote offset for follower partitions > b. remote.log.manager.copier.thread.pool.size: handles the RLMCopyTask > < > https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/apache/kafka/-/blob/core/src/main/java/kafka/log/remote/RemoteLogManager.java?L830 > > > to copy the segments to remote storage > c. remote.log.manager.expiration.thread.pool.size: handles the > RLMExpirationTask > < > https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/apache/kafka/-/blob/core/src/main/java/kafka/log/remote/RemoteLogManager.java?L1095 > > > to delete the expired remote segments. > > The plan was to deprecate the remote.log.manager.thread.pool.size > thread-pool after KIP-950 but it was not done > and used for the follower partition tasks. Compared to copier/expiration > tasks, the follower tasks are light-weight > so proposing to reduce that thread-pool size to 2. > > -- > Kamal > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:48 PM Kamal Chandraprakash < > kamal.chandraprak...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Divij, > > > > I also share the same concern as Greg pointed out for segment.bytes / > > segment.index.bytes. > > All the tiered storage tests > > < > https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/apache/kafka/-/blob/storage/src/test/java/org/apache/kafka/tiered/storage/utils/TieredStorageTestUtils.java?L174 > > > > might start to fail with the new defaults. I'm fine with the proposal > > provided we plan to fix those tests as part of this KIP. > > > > -- > > Kamal > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 9:55 PM Divij Vaidya <divijvaidy...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hello everyone > >> > >> Since, I believe I have addressed all the concerns that were raised > here, > >> I > >> have started a vote thread for this KIP at > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/39dmfkd7ktb0oo44yqrkndcn4kcqt5hc > >> > >> Please participate in the vote. > >> > >> -- > >> Divij Vaidya > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 12:33 PM Divij Vaidya <divijvaidy...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks for the feedback folks. > >> > > >> > *Jun* > >> > > >> > 10. Fixed it. It now says 2 as the new default for recovery threads. > >> > > >> > 11. I have added a sentence that we will apply the defaults for both > >> > broker level and equivalent topic level configs. I have further added > >> both > >> > the broker level and the topic level config to the table. For example, > >> you > >> > may notice (message.timestamp.after.max.ms / > >> > log.message.timestamp.after.max.ms). Furthermore, the constraints > will > >> > apply (similar to constraints today) when validating dynamically > changed > >> > configuration and also when validating static configuration (such as > >> > server.properties). Please let me know if I have missed anything. > >> > > >> > 12. In the interest of time, I have removed the constraint proposal > for > >> rf > >> > >= min.insync.replicas. We will circle back on it in a separate KIP. > >> > > >> > *Luke* > >> > > >> > 10 and 12 above should align with what you suggested. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Divij Vaidya > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 4:00 AM Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Divij and Jun, > >> >> > >> >> Thanks for your comments. > >> >> I'm good we put the default value of > num.recovery.threads.per.data.dir > >> to > >> >> 2 > >> >> since there are many factors that need to be considered. > >> >> > >> >> And James, good point of min.insync.replicas validation. If it's > >> >> complicated or will confuse users, I'd propose we leave it out of > >> v4.0.0. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks. > >> >> Luke > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 2:31 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Hi, Divij, > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks for the reply. A few more comments. > >> >> > > >> >> > 10. num.recovery.threads.per.data.dir still seems to depend on the > >> >> number > >> >> > of cores. > >> >> > > >> >> > 11. Some of the configs on the server side exist at different > levels > >> >> > (static, broker, topic, etc) with slightly different names. It > would > >> be > >> >> > useful to be clear at what level the new default and the constraint > >> >> apply. > >> >> > > >> >> > 12. James had a good point on min.insync.replicas. It would be > >> useful to > >> >> > define when the constraint applies (topic creation, config changes, > >> >> etc). > >> >> > For example, if the broker-level min.insync.replicas value is > changed > >> >> to 2, > >> >> > what happens to existing topics with replication factor 1? If a > topic > >> >> has > >> >> > min.insync.replicas of 2, what happens to an > >> AlterPartitionReassignments > >> >> > request that wants to reduce the replication factor to 1? > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks, > >> >> > > >> >> > Jun > >> >> > > >> >> > On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 9:57 AM Divij Vaidya < > >> divijvaidy...@gmail.com> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > Jun > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Thank you for the feedback. I have removed the configuration > >> changes > >> >> > where > >> >> > > we are relying on num cores. The only change I have kept is > >> increasing > >> >> > > recovery threads to 2 (from 1 as default). > >> >> > > > >> >> > > James > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Thank you for bringing the JIRA to my attention. I haven't looked > >> >> deeply > >> >> > > into the implementation but based on my understanding of the > Kafka > >> >> code > >> >> > > base, I do believe that there is a path to implement this > >> constraint. > >> >> We > >> >> > > will cross that bridge during the implementation phase and I will > >> >> ensure > >> >> > > that I look at the historical context you provided in the JIRA. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > -- > >> >> > > Divij Vaidya > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 6:48 AM James Cheng < > wushuja...@gmail.com> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > About replication.factor >= min.insync.replicas change, you > >> should > >> >> look > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4680 . That JIRA > >> talks > >> >> > about > >> >> > > > some of the complexities of detecting it. For example, what if > a > >> >> topic > >> >> > > has > >> >> > > > replication factor 1, but someone changes the broker-level > >> >> > > > min.insync.replicas value to 2? How would that be detected? > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > That JIRA has an associated PR. The PR has some comments that > >> link > >> >> to > >> >> > > > discussions on this mailing list. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > That PR, btw, was just closed due to being stale. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > -James > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > On Nov 18, 2024, at 2:15 AM, Divij Vaidya < > >> >> divijvaidy...@gmail.com> > >> >> > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Hey folks > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > With 4.0, we have an opportunity to reset the default values > >> and > >> >> add > >> >> > > > > constraints in the configurations based on our learnings > since > >> >> 3.0. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Here's a KIP which modifies defaults for some properties and > >> >> modifies > >> >> > > the > >> >> > > > > constraints for a few others. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1030%3A+Change+constraints+and+default+values+for+various+configurations > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Looking forward for your feedback. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > (Previous discussion thread on this topic - > >> >> > > > > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/3dx9mdmsqf8pko9xdmhks80k96g650zp > >> >> ) > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >
