Hi Bill, The PR is still under review. It might take some more time because it touches a bunch of files. You can watch KAFKA-3025 so once it gets closed you will get email notification. Looking forward to your tool.
Thanks, Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Bill Warshaw <bill.wars...@appian.com> wrote: > Becket, > > I took a look at KIP-32 and your PR for it. This looks like something that > would be great to build off of; I'm envisioning a timestamp-based policy > where the client application sets a minimum timestamp, before which > everything can be deleted / compacted. How far along is this pull request? > > Bill Warshaw > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I agree with Guozhang that this seems better to be a separate tool. > > > > Also, I am wondering if KIP-32 can be used here. We can have a timestamp > > based compaction policy if needed, for example, keep any message whose > > timestamp is greater than (MaxTimestamp - 24 hours). > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > For your case since once the log is cleaned up to the given offset > > > watermark (or threshold, whatever the name is), future cleaning with > the > > > same watermark will effectively be a no-op, so I feel your scenario > will > > be > > > better fit as a one-time admin tool to cleanup the logs rather than > > > customizing the periodic cleaning policy. Does this sound reasonable to > > > you? > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Bill Warshaw <bill.wars...@appian.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > For our particular use case, we would need to. This proposal is > really > > > two > > > > separate pieces: custom log compaction policy, and the ability to > set > > > > arbitrary key-value pairs in a Topic configuration. > > > > > > > > I believe that Kafka's current behavior of throwing errors when it > > > > encounters configuration keys that aren't defined is meant to help > > users > > > > not misconfigure their configuration files. If that is the sole > > > motivation > > > > for it, I would propose adding a property namespace, and allow users > to > > > > configure arbitrary properties behind that particular namespace, > while > > > > still enforcing strict parsing for all other properties. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > So do you need to periodically update the key-value pairs to > "advance > > > the > > > > > threshold for each topic"? > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Bill Warshaw < > > bill.wars...@appian.com > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Compaction would be performed in the same manner as it is > > currently. > > > > > There > > > > > > is a predicate applied in the "shouldRetainMessage" function in > > > > > LogCleaner; > > > > > > ultimately we just want to be able to swap a custom > implementation > > of > > > > > that > > > > > > particular method in. Nothing else in the compaction codepath > > would > > > > need > > > > > > to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > For advancing the "threshold transaction_id", ideally we would be > > > able > > > > to > > > > > > set arbitrary key-value pairs on the topic configuration. We > have > > > > access > > > > > > to the topic configuration during log compaction, so a custom > > policy > > > > > class > > > > > > would also have access to that config, and could read anything we > > > > stored > > > > > in > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Guozhang Wang < > wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Bill, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just to clarify your use case, is your "log compaction" > executed > > > > > > manually, > > > > > > > or it is triggered periodically like the current log cleaning > > > by-key > > > > > > does? > > > > > > > If it is the latter case, how will you advance the "threshold > > > > > > > transaction_id" each time when it executes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Bill Warshaw < > > > > bill.wars...@appian.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Damian, I appreciate your quick response. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our transaction_id is incrementing for each transaction, so > we > > > will > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > ever have one message in Kafka with a given transaction_id. > We > > > > > thought > > > > > > > > about using a rolling counter that is incremented on each > > > > checkpoint > > > > > as > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > key, and manually triggering compaction after the checkpoint > is > > > > > > complete, > > > > > > > > but our checkpoints are asynchronous. This means that we > would > > > > have > > > > > a > > > > > > > set > > > > > > > > of messages appended to the log after the checkpoint started, > > > with > > > > > > value > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > the previous key + 1, that would also be compacted down to a > > > single > > > > > > > entry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our particular custom policy would delete all messages whose > > key > > > > was > > > > > > less > > > > > > > > than a given transaction_id that we passed in. I can > imagine a > > > > wide > > > > > > > > variety of other custom policies that could be used for > > retention > > > > > based > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > the key and value of the message. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Bill Warshaw < > > > > > bill.wars...@appian.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm working on a team that is starting to use Kafka as a > > > > > distributed > > > > > > > > > transaction log for a set of in-memory databases which can > be > > > > > > > replicated > > > > > > > > > across nodes. We decided to use Kafka instead of > Bookkeeper > > > for > > > > a > > > > > > > > variety > > > > > > > > > of reasons, but there are a couple spots where Kafka is > not a > > > > > perfect > > > > > > > > fit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The biggest issue facing us is deleting old transactions > from > > > the > > > > > log > > > > > > > > > after checkpointing the database. We can't use any of the > > > > built-in > > > > > > > size > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > time-based deletion mechanisms efficiently, because we > could > > > get > > > > > > > > ourselves > > > > > > > > > into a dangerous state where we're deleting transactions > that > > > > > haven't > > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > checkpointed yet. The current approach we're looking at is > > > > > rolling a > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > topic each time we checkpoint, and deleting the old topic > > once > > > > all > > > > > > > > replicas > > > > > > > > > have consumed everything in it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another idea we came up with is using a pluggable > compaction > > > > > policy; > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > would set the message key as the offset or transaction id, > > and > > > > the > > > > > > > policy > > > > > > > > > would delete all messages with a key smaller than that id. > > > > > > > > > I took a stab at implementing the hook in Kafka for > pluggable > > > > > > > compaction > > > > > > > > > policies at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/compare/trunk...bill-warshaw:pluggable_compaction_policy > > > > > > > > > (rough implementation), and it seems fairly > straightforward. > > > One > > > > > > > problem > > > > > > > > > that we run into is that the custom policy class can only > > > access > > > > > > > > > information that is defined in the configuration, and the > > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > > > doesn't allow custom key-value pairs; if we wanted to pass > it > > > > > > > information > > > > > > > > > dynamically, we'd have to use some hack like calling > > Zookeeper > > > > from > > > > > > > > within > > > > > > > > > the class. > > > > > > > > > To get around this, my best idea is to add the ability to > > > specify > > > > > > > > > arbitrary key-value pairs in the configuration, that our > > client > > > > > could > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > to pass information to the custom policy. Does this set > off > > > any > > > > > > alarm > > > > > > > > > bells for you guys? If so, are there other approaches we > > could > > > > > take > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > come to mind? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your time, > > > > > > > > > Bill Warshaw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > <http://appianworld.com> > > > > > > > > This message and any attachments are solely for the intended > > > > > recipient. > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use, > > or > > > > > > > > distribution of the information included in this message is > > > > > prohibited > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > please immediately and permanently delete this message. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > <http://appianworld.com> > > > > > > This message and any attachments are solely for the intended > > > recipient. > > > > > If > > > > > > you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use, or > > > > > > distribution of the information included in this message is > > > prohibited > > > > -- > > > > > > please immediately and permanently delete this message. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > <http://appianworld.com> > > > > This message and any attachments are solely for the intended > recipient. > > > If > > > > you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use, or > > > > distribution of the information included in this message is > prohibited > > -- > > > > please immediately and permanently delete this message. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > -- > <http://appianworld.com> > This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient. If > you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use, or > distribution of the information included in this message is prohibited -- > please immediately and permanently delete this message. >
