Thanks Paul, this is great. This will make monitoring Connect a ton easier.
Ryanne On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 1:24 PM Paul Davidson <pdavid...@salesforce.com.invalid> wrote: > I have updated KIP-411 to propose changing the default client id - see: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-411%3A+Make+default+Kafka+Connect+worker+task+client+IDs+distinct > > > There is also an PR ready to go here: > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6097 > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:39 PM Paul Davidson <pdavid...@salesforce.com> > wrote: > > > Hi everyone. We seem to have agreement that the ideal approach is to > > alter the default client ids. Now I'm wondering about the best process to > > proceed. Will the change in default behaviour require a new KIP, given it > > will affect existing deployments? Would I be best to repurpose this > > KIP-411, or am I best to create a new KIP? Thanks! > > > > Paul > > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:16 PM Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi, Paul. > >> > >> I concur with the others, and I like the new approach that avoids a new > >> configuration, especially because it does not change the behavior for > >> anyone already using `producer.client.id` and/or `consumer.client.id`. > I > >> did leave a few comments on the PR. Perhaps the biggest one is whether > the > >> producer used for the sink task error reporter (for dead letter queue) > >> should be `connector-producer-<sink-task-id>`, and whether that is > >> distinct > >> enough from source tasks, which will be of the form > >> `connector-producer-<source-task-id>`. Maybe it is fine. (The other > >> comments were minor.) > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Randall > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 1:19 PM Paul Davidson <pdavid...@salesforce.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks all. I've submitted a new PR with a possible implementation: > >> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6097. Note I did not include the > >> > group > >> > ID as part of the default client ID, mainly to avoid the connector > name > >> > appearing twice by default. As noted in the original Jira ( > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-5061), leaving out the > >> group > >> > ID > >> > could lead to naming conflicts if multiple clusters run the same Kafka > >> > cluster. This would probably not be a problem for many (including us) > as > >> > metrics exporters can usually be configured to include a cluster ID > and > >> > guarantee uniqueness. Will be interested to hear your thoughts on > this. > >> > > >> > Paul > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:27 AM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > I'd also prefer to avoid the new configuration property if possible. > >> > Seems > >> > > like a lighter touch without it. > >> > > > >> > > Ryanne > >> > > > >> > > On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 7:25 PM Paul Davidson < > >> pdavid...@salesforce.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Hi Konstantine, > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks for your feedback! I think my reply to Ewen covers most of > >> your > >> > > > points, and I mostly agree. If there is general agreement that > >> > changing > >> > > > the default behavior is preferable to a config change I will > update > >> my > >> > PR > >> > > > to use that approach. > >> > > > > >> > > > Paul > >> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 5:55 PM Konstantine Karantasis < > >> > > > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi Paul. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I second Ewen and I intended to give similar feedback: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 1) Can we avoid a config altogether? > >> > > > > 2) If we prefer to add a config anyways, can we use a set of > >> allowed > >> > > > values > >> > > > > instead of a boolean, even if initially these values are only > >> two? As > >> > > the > >> > > > > discussion on Jira highlights, there is a potential for more > >> naming > >> > > > > conventions in the future, even if now the extra functionality > >> > doesn't > >> > > > seem > >> > > > > essential. It's not optimal to have to deprecate a config > instead > >> of > >> > > just > >> > > > > extending its set of values. > >> > > > > 3) I agree, the config name sounds too general. How about > >> > > > > "client.ids.naming.policy" or "client.ids.naming" if you want > two > >> > more > >> > > > > options? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Konstantine > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 7:38 AM Ewen Cheslack-Postava < > >> > > e...@confluent.io> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Paul, > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. A few comments. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > To me, biggest question here is if we can fix this behavior > >> without > >> > > > > adding > >> > > > > > a config. In particular, today, we don't even set the > client.id > >> > for > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > producer and consumer at all, right? The *only* way it is set > >> is if > >> > > you > >> > > > > > include an override in the worker config, but in that case you > >> need > >> > > to > >> > > > be > >> > > > > > explicitly opting in with a `producer.` or `consumer.` prefix, > >> i.e. > >> > > the > >> > > > > > settings are `producer.client.id` and `consumer.client.id`. > >> > > > Otherwise, I > >> > > > > > think we're getting the default behavior where we generate > >> unique, > >> > > > > > per-process IDs, i.e. via this logic > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/consumer/KafkaConsumer.java#L662-L664 > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > If that's the case, would it maybe be possible to compatibly > >> change > >> > > the > >> > > > > > default to use task IDs in the client ID, but only if we don't > >> see > >> > an > >> > > > > > existing override from the worker config? This would only > change > >> > the > >> > > > > > behavior when someone is using the default, but since the > >> default > >> > > would > >> > > > > > just use what is effectively a random ID that is useless for > >> > > monitoring > >> > > > > > metrics, presumably this wouldn't affect any existing users. I > >> > think > >> > > > that > >> > > > > > would avoid having to introduce the config, give better out of > >> the > >> > > box > >> > > > > > behavior, and still be a safe, compatible change to make. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Other than that, just two minor comments. On the config > naming, > >> not > >> > > > sure > >> > > > > > about a better name, but I think the config name could be a > bit > >> > > clearer > >> > > > > if > >> > > > > > we need to have it. Maybe something including "task" like > >> > > > > > "task.based.client.ids" or something like that (or change the > >> type > >> > to > >> > > > be > >> > > > > an > >> > > > > > enum and make it something like task.client.ids=[default|task] > >> and > >> > > > leave > >> > > > > it > >> > > > > > open for extension in the future if needed). > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Finally, you have this: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > *"Allow overriding client.id <http://client.id/> on a > >> > per-connector > >> > > > > > basis"* > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > This is a much more complex change, and would require > >> individual > >> > > > > > > connectors to be updated to support the change. In contrast, > >> the > >> > > > > proposed > >> > > > > > > approach would immediately allow detailed consumer/producer > >> > > > monitoring > >> > > > > > for > >> > > > > > > all existing connectors. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I don't think this is quite accurate. I think the reason to > >> reject > >> > is > >> > > > > that > >> > > > > > for your particular requirement for metrics, it simply doesn't > >> give > >> > > > > enough > >> > > > > > granularity (there's only one value per entire connector), but > >> it > >> > > > doesn't > >> > > > > > require any changes to connectors. The framework allocates all > >> of > >> > > these > >> > > > > and > >> > > > > > there are already framework-defined config values that all > >> > connectors > >> > > > > share > >> > > > > > (some for only sinks or sources), so the framework can handle > >> all > >> > of > >> > > > this > >> > > > > > without changes to connectors. Further, with > connector-specific > >> > > > > overrides, > >> > > > > > you could get task-specific values if interpolation were > >> supported > >> > in > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > config value (as we now do with managed secrets). For example, > >> it > >> > > could > >> > > > > > support something like client.id=connector-${taskId} and the > >> task > >> > ID > >> > > > > would > >> > > > > > be substituted automatically into the string. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I don't necessarily like that solution (seems complicated and > >> not a > >> > > > great > >> > > > > > user experience), but it could work. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -Ewen > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 5:05 PM Paul Davidson < > >> > > > pdavid...@salesforce.com> > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi everyone, > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion around the following KIP: > >> > > > > > > * > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-411%3A+Add+option+to+make+Kafka+Connect+task+client+ID+values+unique > >> > > > > > > < > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-411%3A+Add+option+to+make+Kafka+Connect+task+client+ID+values+unique > >> > > > > > > >* > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > This proposes a small change to allow Kafka Connect the > >> option to > >> > > > > > > auto-generate unique client IDs for each task. This enables > >> > > granular > >> > > > > > > monitoring of the producer / consumer client in each task. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Feedback is appreciated, thanks in advance! > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Paul > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
