On Fri, Oct 5, 2018, at 10:58, Thomas Becker wrote: > Colin, > Would you mind sharing your vision for how this looks with multiple > consumers? I'm still getting my bearings with the new consumer but it's > not immediately obvious to me how this would work.
Hi Thomas, I was just responding to the general idea that you would have some kind of control topic that you wanted to read with very low latency, and some kind of set of data topics where the latency requirements are less strict. In that case, you can just have two consumers: one for the low-latency topic, and one for the less low-latency topics. There's a lot of things in this picture that are unclear. Does the data in one set of topics have any relation to the data in the other? Why do we want a control channel distinct from the data channel? That's why I asked for clarification on the use-case. > In particular, it doesn't seem particularly easy to know when you are at the > high > watermark of a topic. KafkaConsumer#committed will return the last committed offset for a partition. However, I'm not sure I understand why you want this information in this case-- can you expand a bit on this? best, Colin > > -Tommy > > On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 13:43 -0700, Colin McCabe wrote: > > Hi all, > > > I feel like the DISCUSS thread didn't really come to a conclusion, so a > vote would be premature here. > > > In particular, I still don't really understand the use-case for this > feature. Can someone give a concrete scenario where you would need > this? The control plane / data plane example that is listed in the KIP > doesn't require this feature. You can just have one consumer for the > control plane, and one for the data plane, and do priority that way. > The discussion feels kind of unfocused since we haven't identified even > one concrete use-case that needs this feature. > > > Unfortunately, this is a feature which consumes server-side memory. We > have to store the priorities somehow when doing incremental fetch > requests. If we go with an int as suggested, then this is at least 4 > bytes per partition per incremental fetch request. It also makes it > more complex and potentially slower to maintain the linked list of > partitions in the fetch requests. Before we think about this, I'd like > to have a concrete use-case in mind, so that we can evaluate the costs > versus benefits. > > > best, > > Colin > > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018, at 07:47, Dongjin Lee wrote: > > Great. +1 (non-binding) > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 4:23 AM Matthias J. Sax > <matth...@confluent.io<mailto:matth...@confluent.io>> > > wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > As Dongjin pointed out, the community is working on upcoming 2.1 > > release, and thus it might take some time until people find time to > > follow up on this an vote. > > > > -Matthias > > > On 9/30/18 11:11 AM, n...@afshartous.com<mailto:n...@afshartous.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 30, 2018, at 5:16 AM, Dongjin Lee > <dong...@apache.org<mailto:dong...@apache.org>> wrote: > > > 1. Your KIP document > > < > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-349%3A+Priorities+for+Source+Topics > > < > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-349%3A+Priorities+for+Source+Topics > > > lacks hyperlink to the discussion thread. And I couldn`t find the > > discussion thread from the mailing archive. > > > > Hi Dongjin, > > > There has been a discussion thread. I added this link as a reference > > > https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@kafka.apache.org:lte=1M:kip-349 > > <https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@kafka.apache.org:lte=1M:kip-349> > > > to the KIP-349 page > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-349%3A+Priorities+for+Source+Topics > > < > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-349:+Priorities+for+Source+Topics > > > > Best, > > -- > > Nick > > > > > > > -- > > *Dongjin Lee* > > > *A hitchhiker in the mathematical world.* > > > *github: <http://goog_969573159/>github.com/dongjinleekr > > <http://github.com/dongjinleekr>linkedin: kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr > > <http://kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr>slideshare: > > www.slideshare.net/dongjinleekr<http://www.slideshare.net/dongjinleekr> > > <http://www.slideshare.net/dongjinleekr>* > > ________________________________ > > This email and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged > material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, > copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments) by others is > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the > sender immediately and permanently delete this email and any > attachments. No employee or agent of TiVo Inc. is authorized to conclude > any binding agreement on behalf of TiVo Inc. by email. Binding > agreements with TiVo Inc. may only be made by a signed written > agreement.
