Hi Ismael, Sorry, I had missed your note earlier. Jun had suggested changing the quota callback methods so that there is only one method to obtain quota limits. We used to have two methods, one which returned (*quotaLimit+metricTags)* and another which returned *quotaLimit* given the *metricTags.* Now the first method returns just the *metricTags* and we use the second to obtain *quotaLimit.*
We have three scenarios: 1. Determine the quota for a request based on principal 2. Quota updated in ZK, we need to update quota limits on existing metrics 3. Quota updated externally (e.g. quotas are stored in a database or custom dynamic configs are used) For the default quota configuration using ZooKeeper, the two new methods work well. For 1) the first time we see a client, we get *metricTags* and use *quotaLimit* to get the limit for those tags and for subsequent requests, we just need *metricTags*. For 2) we get *quotaLimit* based on *metricTags* to update existing metrics. In many cases, this could just be a single metric update. For 3), however, I had to add another method to check if quotas need updating. The boolean method `quotaResetRequired()` is invoked when we are determining quotas for a connection, and it basically does whatever is done in 2) for externally managed quotas. On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Hi Rajini, > > Can you share the motivation for the change? Not sure if the new approach > is better. > > Ismael > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Rajini Sivaram <rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The quota callback interface was updated based on Jun's suggestion during > > the PR review. I have updated the KIP to reflect this. > > > > Let me know if there are any concerns. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Rajini > > > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Rajini Sivaram <rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks, Ismael. > > > > > > I have updated the KIP and the PR. > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:37 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > >> Sounds good to me Rajini. Good catch spotting this before it's > included > > in > > >> a release. :) > > >> > > >> Ismael > > >> > > >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > For compatibility reasons, we are now using Java rather than Scala > for > > >> all > > >> > pluggable interfaces including those on the broker. There is > already a > > >> KIP > > >> > to move Authorizer to Java as well. As we will be removing support > for > > >> Java > > >> > 7 in the next release, we can also use default methods in Java when > we > > >> need > > >> > to update pluggable Java interfaces. So the plan is to use Java for > > all > > >> new > > >> > pluggable interfaces. > > >> > > > >> > We already have the package org.apache.kafka.server, under which we > > have > > >> > the sub-package for policies, so it makes sense to define quota > > >> callback as > > >> > a Java interface here too. > > >> > > > >> > If there are any concerns, please let me know. Otherwise I will > update > > >> the > > >> > KIP and the associated PR. > > >> > > > >> > Thank you, > > >> > > > >> > Rajini > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > > >> rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Since there all the comments so far have been addressed, I will > > start > > >> > vote > > >> > > for this KIP. > > >> > > > > >> > > Regards, > > >> > > > > >> > > Rajini > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > > >> rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> Thanks, Jun. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> 11. updatePartitionMetadata() provides all partitions with their > > >> leaders > > >> > >> so that callbacks that scale down quotas based on fraction of > > >> partitions > > >> > >> hosted on each broker may compute the scaling factor. Callbacks > > that > > >> > scale > > >> > >> up quotas based on the partition count hosted on each broker can > > >> simply > > >> > >> filter out the others. I have updated the Javadoc in the KIP. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >>> Hi, Rajini, > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense. > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> 11. We probably want to clarify in the interface that every time > > >> when > > >> > >>> updatePartitionMetadata() is called, the full list of partitions > > >> whose > > >> > >>> leader is on this broker will be passed in? > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> Jun > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > > >> > rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> wrote: > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > Hi Jun, > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > 12. Sorry, I had to revert the change that removed ` > > >> > >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quotaLimit()`. We are allowing quota > > >> callbacks > > >> > to > > >> > >>> use > > >> > >>> > custom metric tags. For each request, quota manager uses ` > > >> > >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quota()` to map (user-principal, > client-id) > > to > > >> > the > > >> > >>> > metric tags that determine which clients share the quota. When > > >> quotas > > >> > >>> are > > >> > >>> > updated using `updateQuota` or `updatePartitionMetadata`, > > >> existing > > >> > >>> metrics > > >> > >>> > need to updated, but quota managers don't have a reverse > mapping > > >> of > > >> > >>> metric > > >> > >>> > tags to (user-principal, client-id) for > > >> invoking`ClientQuotaCallback. > > >> > >>> > quota() > > >> > >>> > ` . Callbacks cannot return all updated metrics since they > don't > > >> have > > >> > >>> > access to the metrics object and we don't want to require > > >> callbacks > > >> > to > > >> > >>> > track all the entities for which metrics have been created > > (since > > >> > they > > >> > >>> may > > >> > >>> > contain client-ids and hence need expiring). With the extra > > >> method, > > >> > >>> quota > > >> > >>> > manager traverses the metric list after `updateQuota` or ` > > >> > >>> > updatePartitionMetadata` and obtains the latest value > > >> corresponding > > >> > to > > >> > >>> each > > >> > >>> > metric based on the tags using `ClientQuotaCallback.quotaLimi > > >> t()`. > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > An alternative may be to delay quota metrics updates until the > > >> next > > >> > >>> request > > >> > >>> > that uses the metric. When we get sensors, we can check if the > > >> quota > > >> > >>> > configured in the metric matches the value returned by ` > > >> > >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quota()`. This will be slightly more > > expensive > > >> > >>> since we > > >> > >>> > need to check on every request, but the callback API as well > as > > >> the > > >> > >>> quota > > >> > >>> > manager update code path would be simpler. What do you think? > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > Thanks, > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > Rajini > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > > >> > >>> rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > > >> > >>> > wrote: > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > Hi Jun, > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > Thank you for reviewing the KIP. > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > 10. This is the current behaviour (this KIP retains the same > > >> > >>> behaviour > > >> > >>> > for > > >> > >>> > > the default quota callback). We include 'user' and > 'client-id' > > >> tags > > >> > >>> in > > >> > >>> > > all the quota metrics, rather than omit tags at the moment. > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > 11. Ah, I hadn't realised that. I wasn't expecting to > include > > >> > deleted > > >> > >>> > > partitions in updatePartitionMetadata. I have updated the > > >> Javadoc > > >> > in > > >> > >>> the > > >> > >>> > > KIP to reflect that. > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > 12. When quotas are updated as a result of `updateQuota` or > ` > > >> > >>> > > updatePartitionMetadata`, we may need to update quota bound > > for > > >> one > > >> > >>> or > > >> > >>> > > more existing metrics. I didn't want to expose metrics to > the > > >> > >>> callback. > > >> > >>> > So ` > > >> > >>> > > quotaLimit` was providing the new quotas corresponding to > > >> existing > > >> > >>> > > metrics. But perhaps a neater way to do this is to return > > >> updated > > >> > >>> quotas > > >> > >>> > as > > >> > >>> > > the return value of `updateQuota` and > > `updatePartitionMetadata` > > >> so > > >> > >>> that > > >> > >>> > > the quota manager can handle metrics updates for those. I > have > > >> > >>> updated > > >> > >>> > the > > >> > >>> > > KIP. > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > > >> wrote: > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > >> Hi, Rajini, > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > >> Thanks for the KIP. Looks good overall. A few comments > below. > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > >> 10. "If <user> quota config is used, *user* tag is set to > > user > > >> > >>> principal > > >> > >>> > >> of > > >> > >>> > >> the session and *client-id* tag is set to empty string. " > > >> Could we > > >> > >>> just > > >> > >>> > >> omit such a tag if the value is empty? > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > >> 11. I think Viktor has a valid point on handling partition > > >> > removal. > > >> > >>> > >> Currently, we use -2 as the leader to signal the deletion > of > > a > > >> > >>> > partition. > > >> > >>> > >> Not sure if we want to depend on that in the interface > since > > >> it's > > >> > an > > >> > >>> > >> internal value. > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > >> 12. Could you explain a bit more the need for quotaLimit()? > > >> This > > >> > is > > >> > >>> > called > > >> > >>> > >> after the updateQuota() call. Could we just let updateQuota > > do > > >> > what > > >> > >>> > >> quotaLimit() > > >> > >>> > >> does? > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > >> Jun > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > > >> > >>> > rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote: > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > >> > Hi all, > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >> > >>> > >> > I have submitted KIP-257 to enable customisation of > client > > >> quota > > >> > >>> > >> > computation: > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >> > >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > >> > >>> > >> > 257+-+Configurable+Quota+Management > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >> > >>> > >> > The KIP proposes to make quota management pluggable to > > enable > > >> > >>> > >> group-based > > >> > >>> > >> > and partition-based quotas for clients. > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >> > >>> > >> > Feedback and suggestions are welcome. > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >> > >>> > >> > Thank you... > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >> > >>> > >> > Regards, > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >> > >>> > >> > Rajini > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
