Hi, Divij, The KIP looks good to me now.
Thanks, Jun On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 6:55 AM Divij Vaidya <divijvaidy...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jun > > Do you have any final thoughts here? The vote thread has sufficient votes > to accept but I wanted to ensure that we don’t have any pending items to > discuss here. > > — > Divij Vaidya > > > > On Thu 28. Nov 2024 at 14:53, Divij Vaidya <divijvaidy...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Agreed about the validation tool. I have already added it in the > > "compatibility" section of the KIP. Will create a separate JIRA for it as > > soon as KIP is approved. > > > > -- > > Divij Vaidya > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 5:35 AM Satish Duggana <satish.dugg...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > >> 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 > >> > > > >> >> ) > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
