Hi Andrey, Thanks for picking this up and apologies for the late comment.
One thing worth mentioning is that the consumer actually sends multiple parallel fetch requests, one for each broker that is hosting some of the assigned partitions. Unless you were planning to modify this behavior, this KIP actually changes the maximum memory used by the consumer from max.partition.fetch.bytes * num_partitions to fetch.response.max.bytes * num_brokers I guess it's really the minimum of the two values since max.partition.fetch.bytes is still supported. I think this is still a very helpful feature, but it's probably worth calling this out in the KIP. Also, one question on naming: would it make sense to change "fetch.response.max.bytes" to "max.fetch.bytes"? Seems to fit nicer with "max.partition.fetch.bytes". Thanks, Jason On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Hi Andrey, > > Can you please start a new thread for the vote? Gmail is showing your vote > message in the discuss thread. > > Ismael > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Andrey L. Neporada < > anepor...@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > I would like to initiate the voting process for KIP-74: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > 74%3A+Add+Fetch+Response+Size+Limit+in+Bytes > > > > Thanks, > > Andrey. >
