[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2397?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14729800#comment-14729800
]
Jason Gustafson commented on KAFKA-2397:
----------------------------------------
[~becket_qin] I'm not sure anyone was suggesting replacing the session timeout
if TCP disconnect was used to signal group departure. I think you need session
timeout regardless of whether we have an explicit leave group request or we use
the TCP disconnect. I also feel a little concern about #3, but I don't actually
know of any cases where network issues will cause a disconnect. In general, my
feeling is that the advantages of the TCP disconnect (in particular the ability
to detect hard crashes more swiftly) are not worth the cost of exposing the
lower level network layer in the consumer coordinator. At the moment, however,
my main concern is more pragmatic: the window for a big change like that is
starting to close.
> leave group request
> -------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-2397
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2397
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: consumer
> Reporter: Onur Karaman
> Assignee: Onur Karaman
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.8.3
>
>
> Let's say every consumer in a group has session timeout s. Currently, if a
> consumer leaves the group, the worst case time to stabilize the group is 2s
> (s to detect the consumer failure + s for the rebalance window). If a
> consumer instead can declare they are leaving the group, the worst case time
> to stabilize the group would just be the s associated with the rebalance
> window.
> This is a low priority optimization!
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
