Hi Ryanne, Thanks for the comment. If I understand your question correctly, I think the answer is no. I would expect typical selection logic to consider replica availability first before any other factor. In some cases, however, a user may put a higher priority on saving cross-dc traffic costs. If a preferred replica is unavailable, they may prefer to wait some time for it to be restored before routing traffic elsewhere. Does that make sense?
Best, Jason On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:43 PM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jason, awesome KIP. > > I'm wondering how this change would affect availability of the cluster when > a rack is unreachable. Is there a scenario where availability is improved > or impaired due to the proposed changes? > > Ryanne > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 4:32 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > Hi Jun, > > > > Yes, that makes sense to me. I have added a ClientMetadata class which > > encapsulates various metadata including the rackId and the client address > > information. > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:17 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > Hi, Jason, > > > > > > Thanks for the updated KIP. Just one more comment below. > > > > > > 100. The ReplicaSelector class has the following method. I am wondering > > if > > > we should additionally pass in the client connection info to the > method. > > > For example, if rackId is not set, the plugin could potentially select > > the > > > replica based on the IP address of the client. > > > > > > Node select(String rackId, PartitionInfo partitionInfo) > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 4:24 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hey Everyone, > > > > > > > > Apologies for the long delay. I am picking this work back up. > > > > > > > > After giving this some further thought, I decided it makes the most > > sense > > > > to move replica selection logic into the broker. It is much more > > > difficult > > > > to coordinate selection logic in a multi-tenant environment if > > operators > > > > have to coordinate plugins across all client applications (not to > > mention > > > > other languages). Take a look at the updates and let me know what you > > > > think: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-392%3A+Allow+consumers+to+fetch+from+closest+replica > > > > . > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:49 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, Jason, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the updated KIP. Looks good overall. Just a few minor > > > > comments. > > > > > > > > > > 20. For case 2, if the consumer receives an OFFSET_NOT_AVAILABLE, I > > am > > > > > wondering if the consumer should refresh the metadata before > > retrying. > > > > This > > > > > can allow the consumer to switch to an in-sync replica sooner. > > > > > > > > > > 21. Under "protocol changes", there is a sentence "This allows the > > > > broker " > > > > > that seems broken. > > > > > > > > > > 4. About reducing the ISR propagation delay from the broker to the > > > > > controller. Jiangjie made that change in KAFKA-2722. Jiangjie, > could > > > you > > > > > comment on whether it's reasonable to reduce the propagation delay > > now? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:06 AM Jason Gustafson < > ja...@confluent.io> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the late reply. I have been giving your comments some > > > > thought. > > > > > > Replies below: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The section on handling FETCH_OFFSET_TOO_LARGE error says "Use > > the > > > > > > > OffsetForLeaderEpoch API to verify the current position with > the > > > > > leader". > > > > > > > The OffsetForLeaderEpoch request returns log end offset if the > > > > request > > > > > > > leader epoch is the latest. So, we won't know the true high > > > watermark > > > > > > from > > > > > > > that request. It seems that the consumer still needs to send > > > > ListOffset > > > > > > > request to the leader to obtain high watermark? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point. I think we missed this in KIP-320. I've > added > > a > > > > > > replica_id to the OffsetsForLeaderEpoch API to match the Fetch > and > > > > > > ListOffsets API so that the broker can avoid exposing offsets > > beyond > > > > the > > > > > > high watermark. This also means that the OffsetsForLeaderEpoch > API > > > > needs > > > > > > the same handling we added to the ListOffsets API to avoid > > > > non-monotonic > > > > > or > > > > > > incorrect responses. Similarly, I've proposed using the > > > > > > OFFSET_NOT_AVAILABLE error code in cases where the end offset of > an > > > > epoch > > > > > > would exceed the high watermark. When querying the latest epoch, > > the > > > > > leader > > > > > > will return OFFSET_NOT_AVAILABLE until the high watermark has > > reached > > > > an > > > > > > offset in the leader's current epoch. > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, I've modified the KIP to drop the OFFSET_TOO_LARGE > and > > > > > > OFFSET_TOO_SMALL error codes that I initially proposed. I > realized > > > that > > > > > we > > > > > > could continue to use the current OFFSET_OUT_OF_RANGE error and > > rely > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > > returned start offset to distinguish the two cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. If a non in-sync replica receives a fetch request from a > > consumer, > > > > > > > should it return a new type of error like ReplicaNotInSync? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I gave this quite a bit of thought. It is impossible to avoid > > > fetching > > > > > from > > > > > > out-of-sync replicas in general due to propagation of the ISR > > state. > > > > The > > > > > > high watermark that is returned in fetch responses could be used > > as a > > > > > more > > > > > > timely substitute, but we still can't assume that followers will > > > always > > > > > > know when they are in-sync. From a high level, this means that > the > > > > > consumer > > > > > > anyway has to take out of range errors with a grain of salt if > they > > > > come > > > > > > from followers. This is only a problem when switching between > > > replicas > > > > or > > > > > > if resuming from a committed offset. If a consumer is following > the > > > > same > > > > > > out-of-sync replica, then its position will stay in range and, > > other > > > > than > > > > > > some extra latency, no harm will be done. > > > > > > > > > > > > Furthermore, it may not be a good idea for consumers to chase the > > ISR > > > > too > > > > > > eagerly since this makes the performance profile harder to > predict. > > > The > > > > > > leader itself may have some temporarily increased request load > > which > > > is > > > > > > causing followers to fall behind. If consumers then switched to > the > > > > > leader > > > > > > after they observed that the follower was out-of-sync, it may > make > > > the > > > > > > situation worse. Typically, If a follower has fallen out-of-sync, > > we > > > > > expect > > > > > > it to catch back up shortly. It may be better in this scenario to > > > allow > > > > > > consumers to continue fetching from it. On the other hand, if a > > > > follower > > > > > > stays out-of-sync for a while, the consumer should have the > choice > > to > > > > > find > > > > > > a new replica. > > > > > > > > > > > > So after thinking about it, I didn't see a lot of benefit in > trying > > > to > > > > be > > > > > > strict about ISR fetching. Potentially it even has downsides. > > > Instead, > > > > I > > > > > > now see it as more of a heuristic which the consumer can use to > > keep > > > > > > end-to-end latency reasonably bounded. The consumer already has > one > > > > knob > > > > > > the user can tune in order to limit this bound. The ` > > > > metadata.max.age.ms > > > > > ` > > > > > > config controls how often metadata is refreshed. To follow the > ISR > > > more > > > > > > closely, the user can refresh metadata more frequently. > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that I've improved the section on out of range handling to > be > > > more > > > > > > explicit about the cases we needed to handle. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Could ReplicaSelector be closable? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I made this change. As an aside, the question of whether we > > > should > > > > > use > > > > > > a plugin does deserve a bit of discussion. An alternative > > (suggested > > > by > > > > > > David Arthur) that I've been thinking about is to let the broker > > > select > > > > > the > > > > > > preferred follower to fetch from using the Metadata API. For > > example, > > > > we > > > > > > could add a `rackId` field to the Metadata API which could be > > > provided > > > > > > through user configuration. The broker could then order the ISR > > list > > > > for > > > > > > each partition so that the preferred follower is returned first > > > > > (currently > > > > > > the order is random). The consumer could then always fetch from > the > > > > first > > > > > > replica in the ISR list. The benefit is that the broker may have > a > > > > better > > > > > > view of the current load characteristics, so it may be able to > make > > > > > better > > > > > > decisions. Client plugins are also much more difficult to > control. > > > This > > > > > may > > > > > > have been the point that Mickael was hinting at above. > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Currently, the ISR propagation from the leader to the > controller > > > can > > > > > be > > > > > > > delayed up to 60 secs through > > > > > > ReplicaManager.IsrChangePropagationInterval. > > > > > > > In that window, the consumer could still be consuming from a > non > > > > > in-sync > > > > > > > replica. The relatively large delay is mostly for reducing the > ZK > > > > > writes > > > > > > > and the watcher overhead. Not sure what's the best way to > address > > > > this. > > > > > > We > > > > > > > could potentially make this configurable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is related to the discussion above. We could make it > > > configurable > > > > I > > > > > > guess. I wonder if it would be reasonable to just reduce the > > default > > > to > > > > > > something like 10 seconds. Do you think we get much benefit from > > > such a > > > > > > long delay? > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. It may be worth mentioning that, to take advantage of > affinity, > > > one > > > > > may > > > > > > > also want to have a customized PartitionAssignor to have an > > > affinity > > > > > > aware > > > > > > > assignment in addition to a customized ReplicaSelector. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this is a good point. I was assuming a situation in which > each > > > > > > partition had its replicas in all the same datacenters, but you > are > > > > right > > > > > > that this need not be the case. I will mention this in the KIP > and > > > give > > > > > it > > > > > > some more thought. I think in the common case, these concerns can > > be > > > > > > treated orthogonally, but it is a bit irritating if you need two > > > > separate > > > > > > plugins to make the benefit more general. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:04 AM Jason Gustafson < > > ja...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eno, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the clarification. From a high level, the main thing > > to > > > > keep > > > > > > in > > > > > > > mind is that this is an opt-in feature. It is a bit like using > > > acks=1 > > > > > in > > > > > > > the sense that a user is accepting slightly weaker guarantees > in > > > > order > > > > > to > > > > > > > optimize for some metric (in this case, read locality). The > > default > > > > > > > behavior would read only from the leader and users will get the > > > usual > > > > > > > semantics. That said, let me address the scenarios you raised: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - scenario 1: an application that both produces and consumes > > (e.g., > > > > > like > > > > > > >> Kafka streams) produces synchronously a single record to a > topic > > > and > > > > > > then > > > > > > >> attempts to consume that record. Topic is 3-way replicated > say. > > > > Could > > > > > it > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > >> the case that the produce succeeds but the consume fails? The > > > > consume > > > > > > >> could > > > > > > >> go to a replica that has not yet fetched the produce record, > > > right? > > > > Or > > > > > > is > > > > > > >> that not possible? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it depends on what you mean by "fails." From a replica > in > > > the > > > > > > > ISR's perspective, it has all of the committed data. The only > > > > question > > > > > is > > > > > > > what is safe to expose since the high watermark is always one > > round > > > > > trip > > > > > > > behind. The proposal is to return a retriable error in this > case > > so > > > > > that > > > > > > > the consumer can distinguish the case from an out of range > error > > > and > > > > > > retry. > > > > > > > No error will be returned to the user, but consumption will be > > > > delayed. > > > > > > One > > > > > > > of the main improvements in the KIP is ensuring that this delay > > is > > > > > > minimal > > > > > > > in the common case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that even without follower fetching, this scenario is > > > > unavoidable. > > > > > > > When a replica becomes a leader, it doesn't know what the > latest > > > high > > > > > > > watermark is until it receives fetches from all followers in > the > > > ISR. > > > > > > > During this window, committed data is temporarily not visible. > We > > > > > handle > > > > > > > this similarly to what is proposed here. Basically we ask the > > > > consumer > > > > > to > > > > > > > retry until we know the data is safe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - scenario 2: an application C that only consumes. Again say > > there > > > is > > > > > > only > > > > > > >> one record produced (by another application P) to a replicated > > > topic > > > > > and > > > > > > >> that record has not propagated to all replicas yet (it is only > > at > > > > the > > > > > > >> leader at time t0). Application C attempts to consume at time > t1 > > > and > > > > > it > > > > > > >> does so successfully because the consume fetches from the > > leader. > > > At > > > > > > time > > > > > > >> t2 the same application seeks to the beginning of the topic > and > > > > > attempts > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> consume again. Is there a scenario where this second attempt > > fails > > > > > > because > > > > > > >> the fetching happens from a replica that does not have the > > record > > > > yet? > > > > > > At > > > > > > >> time t3 all replicas have the record. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this is possible in the way that I described above. There > > is a > > > > > > > (typically short) window in which committed data may not be > > > visible. > > > > It > > > > > > is > > > > > > > a bit like the partition itself being unavailable temporarily. > > The > > > > data > > > > > > has > > > > > > > not been lost and is guaranteed to be returned, but the > consumer > > > has > > > > to > > > > > > > wait until the follower knows it is safe to return. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One final note: I am iterating on the design a little bit in > > order > > > to > > > > > > > address Jun's comments. Expect a few changes. I realized that > > there > > > > is > > > > > > some > > > > > > > inconsistency with the current fetch behavior and KIP-207. It > is > > > > mainly > > > > > > in > > > > > > > regard to how we handle the transition from becoming a follower > > to > > > > > > becoming > > > > > > > a leader. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 3:46 AM Eno Thereska < > > > eno.there...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Jason, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> My question was on producer + consumer semantics, not just the > > > > > producer > > > > > > >> semantics. I'll rephrase it slightly and split into two > > questions: > > > > > > >> - scenario 1: an application that both produces and consumes > > > (e.g., > > > > > like > > > > > > >> Kafka streams) produces synchronously a single record to a > topic > > > and > > > > > > then > > > > > > >> attempts to consume that record. Topic is 3-way replicated > say. > > > > Could > > > > > it > > > > > > >> be > > > > > > >> the case that the produce succeeds but the consume fails? The > > > > consume > > > > > > >> could > > > > > > >> go to a replica that has not yet fetched the produce record, > > > right? > > > > Or > > > > > > is > > > > > > >> that not possible? > > > > > > >> - scenario 2: an application C that only consumes. Again say > > there > > > > is > > > > > > only > > > > > > >> one record produced (by another application P) to a replicated > > > topic > > > > > and > > > > > > >> that record has not propagated to all replicas yet (it is only > > at > > > > the > > > > > > >> leader at time t0). Application C attempts to consume at time > t1 > > > and > > > > > it > > > > > > >> does so successfully because the consume fetches from the > > leader. > > > At > > > > > > time > > > > > > >> t2 the same application seeks to the beginning of the topic > and > > > > > attempts > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> consume again. Is there a scenario where this second attempt > > fails > > > > > > because > > > > > > >> the fetching happens from a replica that does not have the > > record > > > > yet? > > > > > > At > > > > > > >> time t3 all replicas have the record. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks > > > > > > >> Eno > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 7:42 PM Jason Gustafson < > > > ja...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Hey Eno, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks for the comments. However, I'm a bit confused. I'm > not > > > > > > >> suggesting we > > > > > > >> > change Produce semantics in any way. All writes still go > > through > > > > the > > > > > > >> > partition leader and nothing changes with respect to > > committing > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > > >> ISR. > > > > > > >> > The main issue, as I've mentioned in the KIP, is the > increased > > > > > latency > > > > > > >> > before a committed offset is exposed on followers. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Perhaps I have misunderstood your question? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > Jason > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 9:18 AM Eno Thereska < > > > > eno.there...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > This is an interesting KIP. This will have massive > > > implications > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > > consistency and serialization, since currently the leader > > for > > > a > > > > > > >> partition > > > > > > >> > > serializes requests. A few questions for now: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > - before we deal with the complexity, it'd be great to > see a > > > > crisp > > > > > > >> > example > > > > > > >> > > in the motivation as to when this will have the most > benefit > > > > for a > > > > > > >> > > customer. In particular, although the customer might have > a > > > > > multi-DC > > > > > > >> > > deployment, the DCs could still be close by in a region, > so > > > what > > > > > is > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > expected best-case scenario for a performance gain? E.g., > if > > > all > > > > > DCs > > > > > > >> are > > > > > > >> > on > > > > > > >> > > the east-cost, say. Right now it's not clear to me. > > > > > > >> > > - perhaps performance is not the right metric. Is the > metric > > > you > > > > > are > > > > > > >> > > optimizing for latency, throughput or cross-DC cost? (I > > > believe > > > > it > > > > > > is > > > > > > >> > > cross-DC cost from the KIP). Just wanted to double-check > > since > > > > I'm > > > > > > not > > > > > > >> > sure > > > > > > >> > > latency would improve. Throughput could really improve > from > > > > > > >> parallelism > > > > > > >> > > (especially in cases when there is mostly consuming going > > on). > > > > So > > > > > it > > > > > > >> > could > > > > > > >> > > be throughput as well. > > > > > > >> > > - the proposal would probably lead to choosing a more > > complex > > > > > > >> > consistency. > > > > > > >> > > I tend to like the description Doug Terry has in his paper > > > > > > "Replicated > > > > > > >> > Data > > > > > > >> > > Consistency Explained Through Baseball" > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ConsistencyAndBaseballReport.pdf > > > > > > >> > > . > > > > > > >> > > To start with, could we get in scenarios where a client > that > > > has > > > > > > both > > > > > > >> a > > > > > > >> > > producer and a consumer (e.g., Kafka streams) produces a > > > record, > > > > > > then > > > > > > >> > > attempts to consume it back and the consume() comes back > > with > > > > > > "record > > > > > > >> > does > > > > > > >> > > not exist"? That's fine, but could complicate application > > > > handling > > > > > > of > > > > > > >> > such > > > > > > >> > > scenarios. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > Eno > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:24 PM Mickael Maison < > > > > > > >> mickael.mai...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Very cool KIP! > > > > > > >> > > > A couple of questions: > > > > > > >> > > > - I'm guessing the selector will be invoke after each > > > > rebalance > > > > > so > > > > > > >> > > > every time the consumer is assigned a partition it will > be > > > > able > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > > > select it. Is that true? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > - From the selector API, I'm not sure how the consumer > > will > > > be > > > > > > able > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> > > > address some of the choices mentioned in "Finding the > > > > preferred > > > > > > >> > > > follower". Especially the available bandwidth and the > load > > > > > > >> balancing. > > > > > > >> > > > By only having the list of Nodes, a consumer can pick > the > > > > > nereast > > > > > > >> > > > replica (assuming the rack field means anything to > users) > > or > > > > > > balance > > > > > > >> > > > its own bandwidth but that might not necessarily mean > > > improved > > > > > > >> > > > performance or a balanced load on the brokers. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 11:35 AM Stanislav Kozlovski > > > > > > >> > > > <stanis...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hey Jason, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > This is certainly a very exciting KIP. > > > > > > >> > > > > I assume that no changes will be made to the offset > > > commits > > > > > and > > > > > > >> they > > > > > > >> > > will > > > > > > >> > > > > continue to be sent to the group coordinator? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I also wanted to address metrics - have we considered > > any > > > > > > changes > > > > > > >> > > there? > > > > > > >> > > > I > > > > > > >> > > > > imagine that it would be valuable for users to be able > > to > > > > > > >> > differentiate > > > > > > >> > > > > between which consumers' partitions are fetched from > > > > replicas > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > which > > > > > > >> > > > > aren't. I guess that would need to be addressed both > in > > > the > > > > > > >> server's > > > > > > >> > > > > fetcher lag metrics and in the consumers. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > Stanislav > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:08 PM Jun Rao < > > > j...@confluent.io> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, Jason, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. Looks good overall. A few minor > > > > comments > > > > > > >> below. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 1. The section on handling FETCH_OFFSET_TOO_LARGE > > error > > > > says > > > > > > >> "Use > > > > > > >> > the > > > > > > >> > > > > > OffsetForLeaderEpoch API to verify the current > > position > > > > with > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > > leader". > > > > > > >> > > > > > The OffsetForLeaderEpoch request returns log end > > offset > > > if > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > request > > > > > > >> > > > > > leader epoch is the latest. So, we won't know the > true > > > > high > > > > > > >> > watermark > > > > > > >> > > > from > > > > > > >> > > > > > that request. It seems that the consumer still needs > > to > > > > send > > > > > > >> > > ListOffset > > > > > > >> > > > > > request to the leader to obtain high watermark? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2. If a non in-sync replica receives a fetch request > > > from > > > > a > > > > > > >> > consumer, > > > > > > >> > > > > > should it return a new type of error like > > > > ReplicaNotInSync? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 3. Could ReplicaSelector be closable? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 4. Currently, the ISR propagation from the leader to > > the > > > > > > >> controller > > > > > > >> > > > can be > > > > > > >> > > > > > delayed up to 60 secs through > > > > > > >> > > > ReplicaManager.IsrChangePropagationInterval. > > > > > > >> > > > > > In that window, the consumer could still be > consuming > > > > from a > > > > > > non > > > > > > >> > > > in-sync > > > > > > >> > > > > > replica. The relatively large delay is mostly for > > > reducing > > > > > the > > > > > > >> ZK > > > > > > >> > > > writes > > > > > > >> > > > > > and the watcher overhead. Not sure what's the best > way > > > to > > > > > > >> address > > > > > > >> > > > this. We > > > > > > >> > > > > > could potentially make this configurable. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 5. It may be worth mentioning that, to take > advantage > > of > > > > > > >> affinity, > > > > > > >> > > one > > > > > > >> > > > may > > > > > > >> > > > > > also want to have a customized PartitionAssignor to > > have > > > > an > > > > > > >> > affinity > > > > > > >> > > > aware > > > > > > >> > > > > > assignment in addition to a customized > > ReplicaSelector. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Jun > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:54 PM Jason Gustafson < > > > > > > >> > ja...@confluent.io > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I've posted a KIP to add the often-requested > support > > > for > > > > > > >> fetching > > > > > > >> > > > from > > > > > > >> > > > > > > followers: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-392%3A+Allow+consumers+to+fetch+from+closest+replica > > > > > > >> > > > > > > . > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Please take a look and let me know what you think. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > -- > > > > > > >> > > > > Best, > > > > > > >> > > > > Stanislav > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
