Any other feedback from folks on KIP-211? A prime benefit of this KIP is that it removes the need for the consumer to commit offsets for partitions where the offset hasn't changed. Right now, if the consumer doesn't commit those offsets, they will be deleted, so the consumer keeps blindly (re)committing duplicate offsets, wasting network/disk I/O.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Jeff Widman <j...@jeffwidman.com> wrote: > I support this as the proposed change seems both more intuitive and safer. > > Right now we've essentially hacked this at my day job by bumping the > offset retention period really high, but this is a much cleaner solution. > > I don't have any use-cases that require custom retention periods on a > per-group basis. > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Vahid S Hashemian < > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Bump! >> >> >> >> From: Vahid S Hashemian/Silicon Valley/IBM >> To: dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> >> Date: 10/18/2017 04:45 PM >> Subject: [DISCUSS] KIP-211: Revise Expiration Semantics of Consumer >> Group Offsets >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> I created a KIP to address the group offset expiration issue reported in >> KAFKA-4682: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-211% >> 3A+Revise+Expiration+Semantics+of+Consumer+Group+Offsets >> >> Your feedback is welcome! >> >> Thanks. >> --Vahid >> >> >> >> > > > -- > > *Jeff Widman* > jeffwidman.com <http://www.jeffwidman.com/> | 740-WIDMAN-J (943-6265) > <>< > -- *Jeff Widman* jeffwidman.com <http://www.jeffwidman.com/> | 740-WIDMAN-J (943-6265) <><
