Hi, Jiangjie, I was thinking perhaps just reusing index.interval.bytes is enough. Not sure if there is much value in adding an additional time.index.interval.ms.
For 1, the timestamp index has entries of timestamp -> file position. So, there is actually no offset in the index, right? For 2, what you said makes sense for time-based retention. Does that apply if the retention is trigged by size? The difference here is that we can't assume all segments with messages of timestamp smaller than the latest timestamp will be deleted after the message with the latest timestamp is deleted. Thanks, Jun On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jun, > > Rolling out a new segment when the time index is full sounds good. So both > time index and offset index will be sharing the configuration of max index > size. > If we do that, do you think we still want to reuse index.interval.bytes? If > we don't, the risk is that in some corner cases, we might end up with many > small segments. (e.g. small time.index.interval.ms with small max index > size). But this is probably more of a misconfiguration. > > 2. If the broker is still running when all the segments except the active > segment is deleted, we will have an in memory latest timestamp. So that is > not a problem. > > In another case, if a broker boots up and sees only one segment with an > empty time index file, we can scan the active segment and rebuild the time > index. i.e. we do not need to care about the previous largest timestamp > but simply start over. (We need to scan the active segment because it is > possible that the last message appended to the log has a timestamp not > expired, but the broker died before inserting the time index entry for > it.). If all the messages in the active segment has expired, we should roll > out a new segment and reset the latest timetamp to -1. > The principal here is that we will try to build the time indices for the > existing segments that have not expired. If the message with previously > latest timestamp has already been deleted, there is no need to remember > that any more. > > That said, I believe this corner case is really because user is not > configuring the acceptable time difference threshold appropriately. > > Thanks, > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Jiangjie, > > > > Currently, we roll a new log segment if the index is full. We can > probably > > just do the same on the time index. This will bound the index size. > > > > 1. Sounds good. > > > > 2. I was wondering an edge case where the largest timestamp is in the > > oldest segment and the time index is empty is in all newer segments. At > > some point, we delete the oldest segment since it has expired. Then, we > > delete all but the active segment. Now, what should the largest timestamp > > be? Should it be the previous largest timestamp that we have seen or > should > > we dig out the largest timestamp in the active segment? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jun > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > I think index.interval.bytes is used to control the density of the > offset > > > index. The counterpart of index.interval.bytes for time index is > > > time.index.interval.ms. If we did not change the semantic of > log.roll.ms > > , > > > log.roll.ms/time.index.interval.ms and > > > log.segment.bytes/index.interval.bytes are a perfect mapping from bytes > > to > > > time. However, because we changed the behavior of log.roll.ms, we need > > to > > > guard against a potentially excessively large time index. We can either > > > reuse index.interval.bytes or introduce time.index.interval.bytes, but > I > > > cannot think of additional usage for time.index.interval.bytes other > than > > > limiting the time index size. > > > > > > I agree that the memory mapped file is probably not a big issue here > and > > we > > > can change the default index size to 2MB. > > > > > > For the two cases you mentioned. > > > 1. Because the message offset in the time index is also monotonically > > > increasing, truncating should be straightforward. i.e. only keep the > > > entries that are pointing to the offsets earlier than the truncated to > > > offsets. > > > > > > 2. The current assumption is that if the time index of a segment is > empty > > > and there are no previous time index entry, we will assume that segment > > > should be removed - because all the older segment with even larger > > > timestamp have been removed. So in the case you mentioned, during > startup > > > we will remove all the segments and roll out a new empty segment. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, Becket, > > > > > > > > I thought that your proposal to build time-based index just based off > > > > index.interval.bytes > > > > is reasonable. Is there a particular need to also add time. > > > > index.interval.bytes? > > > > > > > > Compute the pre-allocated index file size based on log segment file > > size > > > > can be useful. However, the tricky thing is that log segment size can > > be > > > > changed dynamically. Also, for mmap files, they don't use heap space, > > > just > > > > virtual memory, which will be paged in on demand. So, I am not sure > if > > > > memory space is a big concern there. The simplest thing is probably > to > > > > change the default index size to 2MB to match the default log segment > > > size. > > > > > > > > A couple of other things to think through. > > > > > > > > 1. Currently, LogSegment supports truncating to an offset. How do we > do > > > > that on a time-based index? > > > > > > > > 2. Since it's possible to have a empty time-based index (if all > message > > > > timestamps are smaller than the largest timestamp in previous > segment), > > > we > > > > need to figure out what timestamp to use for retaining such log > > segment. > > > In > > > > the extreme case, it can happen that after we delete an old log > > segment, > > > > all of the new log segments have an empty time-based index, in this > > case, > > > > how do we avoid losing track of the latest timestamp? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > > > > > > > The size of memory mapped index file was also our concern as well. > > That > > > > is > > > > > why we are suggesting minute level time indexing instead of second > > > level. > > > > > There are a few thoughts on the extra memory cost of time index. > > > > > > > > > > 1. Currently all the index files are loaded as memory mapped files. > > > > Notice > > > > > that only the index of the active segment is of the default size > > 10MB. > > > > > Typically the index of the old segments are much smaller than 10MB. > > So > > > if > > > > > we use the same initial size for time index files, the total amount > > of > > > > > memory won't be doubled, but the memory cost of active segments > will > > be > > > > > doubled. (However, the 10MB value itself seems problematic, see > later > > > > > reasoning). > > > > > > > > > > 2. It is likely that the time index is much smaller than the offset > > > index > > > > > because user would adjust the time index interval ms depending on > the > > > > topic > > > > > volume. i.e for a low volume topic the time index interval ms will > be > > > > much > > > > > longer so that we can avoid inserting one time index entry for each > > > > message > > > > > in the extreme case. > > > > > > > > > > 3. To further guard against the unnecessary frequent insertion of > > time > > > > > index entry, we used the index.interval.bytes as a restriction for > > time > > > > > index entry as well. Such that even for a newly created topic with > > the > > > > > default time.index.interval.ms we don't need to worry about overly > > > > > aggressive time index entry insertion. > > > > > > > > > > Considering the above. The overall memory cost for time index > should > > be > > > > > much smaller compared with the offset index. However, as you > pointed > > > out > > > > > for (1) might still be an issue. I am actually not sure about why > we > > > > always > > > > > allocate 10 MB for the index file. This itself looks a problem > given > > we > > > > > actually have a pretty good way to know the upper bound of memory > > taken > > > > by > > > > > an offset index. > > > > > > > > > > Theoretically, the offset index file will at most have > > > > (log.segment.bytes / > > > > > index.interval.bytes) entries. In our default configuration, > > > > > log.segment.size=1GB, and index.interval.bytes=4K. This means we > only > > > > need > > > > > (1GB/4K)*8 Bytes = 2MB. Allocating 10 MB is really a big waste of > > > memory. > > > > > > > > > > I suggest we do the following: > > > > > 1. When creating the log index file, we always allocate memory > using > > > the > > > > > above calculation. > > > > > 2. If the memory calculated in (1) is greater than > > segment.index.bytes, > > > > we > > > > > use segment.index.bytes instead. Otherwise we simply use the result > > in > > > > (1) > > > > > > > > > > If we do this I believe the memory for index file will probably be > > > > smaller > > > > > even if we have the time index added. I will create a separate > ticket > > > for > > > > > the index file initial size. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Jiangjie, > > > > > > > > > > > > I was originally only thinking about the > > "time.index.size.max.bytes" > > > > > config > > > > > > in addition to the "offset.index.size.max.bytes". Since the > > latter's > > > > > > default size is 10MB, and for memory mapped file, we will > allocate > > > that > > > > > > much of memory at the start which could be a pressure on RAM if > we > > > > double > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Becket Qin < > becket....@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought about this again and it seems we stilll need the > > > > > > > time.index.interval.ms configuration to avoid unnecessary > > frequent > > > > > time > > > > > > > index insertion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just updated the wiki to add index.interval.bytes as an > > > additional > > > > > > > constraints for time index entry insertion. Another slight > change > > > > made > > > > > > was > > > > > > > that as long as a message timestamp shows > time.index.interval.ms > > > has > > > > > > > passed > > > > > > > since the timestamp of last time index entry, we will insert > > > another > > > > > > > timestmap index entry. Previously we always insert time index > at > > > > > > > time.index.interval.ms bucket boundaries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Becket Qin < > > becket....@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comment Guozhang, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just changed the configuration name to " > > time.index.interval.ms > > > ". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems the real question here is how big the offset indices > > > will > > > > > be. > > > > > > > > Theoretically we can have one time index entry for each > message > > > in > > > > a > > > > > > log > > > > > > > > segment. For example, if there is one event per minute > > appended, > > > we > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > have to have a time index entry for each message until the > > > segment > > > > > size > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > reached. In that case, the number of index entries in the > time > > > > index > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > be (segment size / avg message size). So the time index file > > size > > > > can > > > > > > > > potentially be big. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am wondering if we can simply reuse the > > "index.interval.bytes" > > > > > > > > configuration instead of having a separate time index > interval > > > ms. > > > > > i.e. > > > > > > > > instead of inserting a new entry based on time interval, we > > still > > > > > > insert > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > based on bytes interval. This does not affect the granularity > > > > because > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > can search from the nearest index entry to find the message > > with > > > > > > correct > > > > > > > > timestamp. The good thing is that this guarantees there will > > not > > > be > > > > > > huge > > > > > > > > time indices. We also save the new configuration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Guozhang Wang < > > > wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks Jiangjie, a few comments on the wiki: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> 1. Config name "time.index.interval" to " > > time.index.interval.ms > > > " > > > > to > > > > > > be > > > > > > > >> consistent. Also do we need a "time.index.size.max.bytes" as > > > well? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> 2. Will the memory mapped index file for timestamp have the > > same > > > > > > default > > > > > > > >> initial / max size (10485760) as the offset index? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Otherwise LGTM. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Guozhang > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Becket Qin < > > > becket....@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Bump. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Per Jun's comments during KIP hangout, I have updated wiki > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > > >> upgrade > > > > > > > >> > plan or KIP-33. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Let's vote! > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Becket Qin < > > > > becket....@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Hi all, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > I would like to initiate the vote for KIP-33. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-33 > > > > > > > >> > > +-+Add+a+time+based+log+index > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > A good amount of the KIP has been touched during the > > > > discussion > > > > > on > > > > > > > >> > KIP-32. > > > > > > > >> > > So I also put the link to KIP-32 here for reference. > > > > > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP > > > > > > > >> > > -32+-+Add+timestamps+to+Kafka+message > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > > >> -- Guozhang > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
