@Jun, Until we make idempotent producer the default (kip-185), this kip is sensitive to retries. I.e., we expire batches either delivery.timeout.ms passes or all retries are exhausted, whichever comes first. In cases where retries exhaust first due to linger.ms + retries * (request.timeout.ms + retry.backoff.ms) being much smaller than delivery.timeout.ms, multiple failed requests (due to pipelining) will cause batches to expire out-of-order. Right?
@Ted, The idea is to have the default value of delivery.timeout.ms=120 sec, which is much larger than default (linger.ms + request.timeout.ms + retry.backoff.ms). If a user configures them incorrectly, report a ConfigException. On 11 September 2017 at 09:11, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi, Sumant, > > Thanks for the KIP. +1. > > Just a minor clarification. The KIP says "Batches expire in order > when max.in.flight.request.per.connection==1". Is that true? It seems that > even with max.in.flight.request.per.connection > 1, batches should still > expire in order. > > Jun > > On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 for the KIP. > > > > For delivery.timeout.ms , since it should be >= linger.ms + > > request.timeout.ms + retry.backoff.ms , it seems the default value > should > > be max(120 seconds, linger.ms + request.timeout.ms + retry.backoff.ms). > > > > Cheers > > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. +1 (binding) from me. Just a minor suggestion, I > > would > > > mention the following under "Public Interfaces": > > > > > > Default value of delivery.timeout.ms = 120 seconds > > > Default value of retries will be changed to MAX_INT > > > request.timeout.ms – current meaning, but messages are not expired > after > > > this time. I.e., request.timeout.ms is no longer relevant for batch > > > expiry. > > > > > > The compatibility impact of such changes can remain in the > compatibility > > > section. Also, I agree about keeping your "reordering" text although it > > > seems like the wiki wasn't updated to match what you posted in the > > > discussion thread. > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Sumant Tambe <suta...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I would like to open the vote for KIP-91: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-91+ > > > > Provide+Intuitive+User+Timeouts+in+The+Producer > > > > > > > > Thank you all for your input on the kip so far. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Sumant > > > > > > > > > >
