Hi Kamal, Thanks for updating the KIP with the offline discussion we had, especially on remotelog.manager.* thread pools with the new behaviour.
Hi Divij, We should target having a validation tool in 4.0 so that users can run it before they run their upgrade and take necessary actions on it. I am fine with updating the KIP with those details later when PRs are raised. Thanks, Satish. On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 at 00:31, Divij Vaidya <divijvaidy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, Kamal, we will fix the tests that rely on low values of segment.ms as > part of the KIP implementation. > > -- > Divij Vaidya > > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 7:40 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > 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 > > > >> >> ) > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
