Hi, Andrey, Thanks for the proposal. It looks good overall. Some minor comments.
1. It seems that it's bit weird that fetch.partition.max.bytes is a broker level configuration while fetch.limit.bytes is a client side configuration. Intuitively, it seems both should be set by the client? If we do that, one benefit is that we can validate that fetch.limit.bytes >= fetch.partition.max.bytes on the client side. 2. Naming wise. fetch.response.max.bytes and replica.fetch.response.max.bytes seem to be more consistent with our current convention than fetch.limit.bytes and replica.fetch.limit.bytes. 3. When you say "This way we can ensure that response size is less than ( *limit_bytes* + *message.max.bytes*).", it should be "less than max(limit_bytes, message.max.bytes)", right? Finally, KIP-73 (replication quota) is proposing a similar change to fetch request protocol. We can probably just combine the two changes into one, instead of bumping the fetch request version twice. Thanks, Jun On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Andrey L. Neporada < anepor...@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > Hi all! > > I’ve just created KIP-74: Add Fetch Response Size Limit in Bytes. > > The idea is to limit client memory consumption when fetching many > partitions (especially useful for replication). > > Full details are here: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-74%3A+ > Add+Fetch+Response+Size+Limit+in+Bytes > > Thanks > Andrey. > >
