The updates LGTM. Thanks for Matthias’s suggestion. I love the idea of using bytes instead of records. Keeping things simple works for me too
> Muralidhar Basani via dev <[email protected]> 於 2026年5月30日 下午1:59 寫道： > > Hi Matthias, > > (1) Regarding KIP-770, KAFKA-13152 was also suggested by Chia. I will pick > it up. > I shall also update KIP-1325 to be byte-based instead of count-based. As > the vote has already passed, happy to re-vote if you think it's needed. > > (2) Regarding lower bound, I had filed a task to benchmark pause/resume to > decide on a lower bound; I can cancel it. > cc Chia — pls let me know if this is fine. > > Thanks, > Murali > >> On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 11:54 PM Matthias J. Sax <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Seems I am late to the party, and the vote already passed. >> >> Two comments from my side: >> >> >> (1) KAFKA-13152 is backed by KIP-770 which was accepted. We just did not >> complete the implementation yet. Thus, I would personally prefer to >> follow KIP-770 approach for this KIP, too, and make the config byte >> based to begin with. This would avoid to add new config we would >> deprecate again anyway... >> >> Also, nobody is working to complete KIP-770 atm, and I would really like >> to complete it. Maybe Muralidhar would be interested to pick it up? This >> way, we might be able to move both config to be byte based at the same >> time. >> >> >> (2) About the pause/resume quest: for the existing config (count base, >> and also future byte based config via KIP-770), we don't have a lower >> bound when to resume, and I don't think we need one. In the end, we want >> to bound the buffer what we achieve. I would only make it more complex >> is there is indeed a issue we need to solve, but no user ever reported a >> problem, so I would keep it simple. >> >> >> -Matthias >> >> >>> On 5/25/26 4:43 AM, Muralidhar Basani via dev wrote: >>> Hi Chia, that’s a valid point. >>> >>> I shall add to kip that based on the benchmarks, we decide to add another >>> lower bound or not. >>> It could be a follow-up. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Murali >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 23 May 2026 at 08:22, Chia-Ping Tsai <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Should we introduce a lower bound to avoid bouncing between pause and >>>> resume? For example, a paused partition should only be resumed once the >>>> buffered records drop below 50% of the max capacity >>>> >>>> On 2026/04/24 17:11:08 Muralidhar Basani via dev wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to start a discussion on KIP-1325, which introduces a new >>>>> streams config to handle message fetching in the restore path. >>>>> >>>>> KIP : >>>>> >>>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1325%3A+Add+restore.buffered.records.per.partition+to+cap+Kafka+Streams+state-restore+memory >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Murali >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >>
