Hello Matthias, On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 3:24 PM Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Thanks for your answers Guozhang! > > I slowly understand more and more details. Couple of follow up questions: > > > > 10) Consumer Coordinator Algorithm--1a: > > > If subscription has changed: revoke all partitions by calling > onPartitionsRevoked, send join-group request with empty owned partitions in > Subscription. > > Could we call `onPartitionsRevoked()` not on all partitions, but only > the assigned ones for topics that got removed from the subscription? And > send corresponding potentially non-empty owned partitions in the > Subscription? In your reply to mentioned to avoid "split brain" -- what > scenario do you have in mind? Releasing partitions seem save, and we > enter a rebalance afterwards anyway. > > I was thinking more about case 1.b to avoid split-brain (details below). But for this case I agree with you after a second thinking. Will update accordingly. > > 20) Consumer Coordinator Algorithm--1b: > > > If topic metadata has changed: call onPartitionsLost on those > owned-but-no-longer-exist partitions; and if the consumer is the leader, > send join-group request. > > Why should only the leader send join-group request? In any client detect > a metadata change, it seems that any client could trigger a new rebalance? > > Today only metadata change on leader will cause it to send join-group request hence trigger a new rebalance; on other members, they will not send join-group but just relying on a single member to make that decision --- it is to avoid split brain: the assignment logic residing on the leader is dependent on the leader's metadata; this metadata could be different with other members. I'm concerned to let "anyone" triggering a rebalance and use its own metadata to decide what topic-partitions are still available, and would prefer to just leave it to a single member, i.e. the leader to make that decision. On the other hand, if 1) a non-member think a partition no long exist but leader think it still exist, it may still get it assigned, which is fine since it will not be able to fetch anything with no metadata anyways; 2) if a non-member a partition still exist but the leader think it does not exist anymore, leader will just "give it back" to the non-member, which is also fine since it will not be able to fetch anything if the metadata did not include this partition. The bottom line is, the metadata of all clients will be up-to-date eventually so I'm leaning towards this simplicity over efficiencies with potential optimization. > 30) Consumer Coordinator Algorithm--1c: > > > If received REBALANCE_IN_PROGRESS from heartbeat response or commit > response: same as a) above. > > For this case, we missed a rebalance. Should we rather call > `onPartitionsLost()` instead of `onPartitionsRevoked()` for this case? > > That's a good point, will update: we should call it on all partitions since a rebalance "may" have been missed and this client is no longer in the group. > > 40) Consumer Coordinator Algorithm--1d: > > > If received MEMBER_ID_REQUIRED from join-group request: same as a) above. > > This can only happen when a new consumer starts and thus no partitions > are assigned. Why do we need to call `onPartitionsRevoked()` before we > send the second join-group request? > > Yup, this section was referring to a) which has been updated; will update this section as well. > > 50) Consumer Coordinator Algorithm--2c: > > > Note the this set otherwise the we would fall into the case 3.b) > forevercould be different from owned-partitions. > > Compare the owned-partitions with assigned-partitions and generate three > exclusive sub-sets: > > Incomplete sentence? > > Ack, updated. > > 60) Consumer Coordinator Algorithm--3: > > > For every consumer: after received the sync-group request, do the > following: > > Do you mean sync-group _response_? > > Yes, updated. > > 70) nit: typo, double `since` > > > It is safe to just follow the above algorithm since for V0 members, > since they've revoked everything > > Ack. > > 80) Downgrading and Old-Versioned New Member > > > We will rely on the above consumer-side metric so that users would be > notified in time. > > What does this exactly mean, ie, how is the user notified? What metric > are you referring to? > > This section is out-dated, updated now. > > 90) About the upgrade path discussion: To use the already existing > mechanism as proposed by Jason, we could sub-class `PartitionAssignor` > as `IncrementalPartitionAssignor extends PartitionAssignor` (or > introduce a marker interface). This would allow the coordinator to > distinguish between both cases and either revoke eagerly or not. > > > I've thought about that and proposed an alternative solution for upgrading, will reply to Jason in this thread. > > -Matthias > > > > > On 4/12/19 6:08 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > Responses below: > > > > 2. The interface's default implementation will just be > >> `onPartitionRevoked`, so for user's instantiation if they do not make > any > >> code changes they should be able to recompile the code and continue. > > > > > > Ack, makes sense. > > > > 4. Hmm.. not sure if it will work. The main issue is that the > >> consumer-coordinator behavior (whether to revoke all or none at > >> onRebalancePrepare) is independent of the selected protocol's assignor > >> (eager or cooperative), so even if the assignor is selected to be the > >> old-versioned one, we will still not revoke at the consumer-coordinator > >> layer and hence has the same risk of migrating still-owned partitions, > >> right? > > > > > > Yeah, basically we would have to push the eager/cooperative logic into > the > > PartitionAssignor itself and make the consumer aware of the rebalance > > protocol it is compatible with. As long as an eager protocol _could_ be > > selected, the consumer would have to be pessimistic and do eager > > revocation. But if all the assignors configured in the consumer support > > cooperative reassignment, then either 1) a cooperative protocol will be > > selected and cooperative revocation can be safely used, or 2) if the rest > > of the group does not support it, then the consumer will simply fail. > > > > Another point which you raised offline and I will repeat here is that > this > > proposal's benefit is mostly limited to sticky assignment logic. Arguably > > the range assignor may have some incidental stickiness, particularly if > the > > group is rebalancing for a newly created or deleted topic. For other > cases, > > the proposal is mostly additional overhead since it takes an additional > > rebalance and many of the partitions will move. Perhaps it doesn't make > as > > much sense to use the cooperative protocol for strategies like range and > > round-robin. That kind of argues in favor of pushing some of the control > > into the assignor itself. Maybe we would not bother creating > > CooperativeRange as I suggested above, but it would make sense to create > a > > cooperative version of the sticky assignment strategy. I thought we might > > have to create a new sticky assignor anyway because I can't see how we > > would get compatible behavior mixing with the old version anyway. > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 5:53 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hello Matthias: > >> > >> Thanks for your review. > >> > >> The background section uses streams assignor as well as the consumer's > own > >> stick assignor as examples illustrating the situation, but this KIP is > for > >> consumer coordinator itself, and the rest of the paragraph did not talk > >> about Streams any more. If you feel it's a bit distracted I can remove > >> those examples. > >> > >> 10). While working on the PR I realized that the revoked partitions on > >> assignment is not needed (this is being discussed on the PR itself: > >> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6528#issuecomment-480009890 > >> > >> 20). 1.a. Good question, I've updated the wiki to let the consumer's > >> cleanup assignment and re-join, and not letting assignor making any > >> proactive changes. The idea is to keep logic simpler and not doing any > >> "split brain" stuff. > >> > >> 20). 2.b. No we do not need, since the owned-partitions will be part of > the > >> Subscription passed in to assign() already. > >> > >> 30). As Boyang mentioned, there are some drawbacks that can not be > >> addressed by rebalance delay still, hence still voted KIP-345 (some more > >> details can be found on the discussion thread of KIP-345 itself). One > >> example is that as the instance resumes, its member id will be empty so > we > >> are still relying on assignor to give it the assignment from the old > >> member-id while keeping all other member's assignment unchanged. > >> > >> 40). Incomplete sentence, I've updated it. > >> > >> 50). Here's my idea: suppose we augment the join group schema with > >> `protocol version` in 2.3, and then with both brokers and clients being > in > >> version 2.3+, on the first rolling bounce where subscription and > assignment > >> schema and / or user metadata has changed, this protocol version will be > >> bumped. On the broker side, when receiving all member's join-group > request, > >> it will choose the one that has the highest protocol version (also it > >> assumes higher versioned protocol is always backward compatible, i.e. > the > >> coordinator can recognize lower versioned protocol as well) and select > it > >> as the leader. Then the leader can decide, based on its received and > >> deserialized subscription information, how to assign partitions and how > to > >> encode the assignment accordingly so that everyone can understand it. > With > >> this, in Streams for example, no version probing would be needed since > we > >> are guaranteed the leader knows everyone's version -- again it is > assuming > >> that higher versioned protocol is always backward compatible -- and > hence > >> can successfully do the assignment at that round. > >> > >> 60). My bad, this section was not updated while the design was evolved, > >> I've updated it. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 7:22 PM Boyang Chen <bche...@outlook.com> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Thanks for the review Matthias! My 2-cent on the rebalance delay is > that > >>> it is a rather fixed trade-off between > >>> > >>> task availability and resource shuffling. If we eventually trigger > >>> rebalance after rolling bounce, certain consumer > >>> > >>> setup is still faced with global shuffles, for example member.id > ranking > >>> based round robin strategy, as rejoining dynamic > >>> > >>> members will be assigned with new member.id which reorders the > >>> assignment. So I think the primary goal of incremental > >>> > >>> rebalancing is still improving the cluster availability during > rebalance, > >>> because it didn't revoke any partition during this > >>> > >>> process. Also, the perk is minimum configuration requirement :) > >>> > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Boyang > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> From: Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 7:47 AM > >>> To: dev > >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-429 : Smooth Auto-Scaling for Kafka Streams > >>> > >>> Thank for the KIP, Boyang and Guozhang! > >>> > >>> > >>> I made an initial pass and have some questions/comments. One high level > >>> comment: it seems that the KIP "mixes" plain consumer and Kafka Streams > >>> use case a little bit (at least in the presentation). It might be > >>> helpful to separate both cases clearly, or maybe limit the scope to > >>> plain consumer only. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 10) For `PartitionAssignor.Assignment`: It seems we need a new method > >>> `List<TopicPartitions> revokedPartitions()` ? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 20) In Section "Consumer Coordinator Algorithm" > >>> > >>> Bullet point "1a)": If the subscription changes and a topic is > >>> removed from the subscription, why do we not revoke the partitions? > >>> > >>> Bullet point "1a)": What happens is a topic is deleted (or a > >>> partition is removed/deleted from a topic)? Should we call the new > >>> `onPartitionsEmigrated()` callback for this case? > >>> > >>> Bullet point "2b)" Should we update the `PartitionAssignor` > >>> interface to pass in the "old assignment" as third parameter into > >>> `assign()`? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 30) Rebalance delay (as used in KIP-415): Could a rebalance delay > >>> subsume KIP-345? Configuring static members is rather complicated, and > I > >>> am wondering if a rebalance delay would be sufficient? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 40) Quote: "otherwise the we would fall into the case 3.b) forever." > >>> > >>> What is "case 3.b" ? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 50) Section "Looking into the Future" > >>> > >>> Nit: the new "ProtocolVersion" field is missing in the first line > >>> describing "JoinGroupRequest" > >>> > >>>> This can also help saving "version probing" cost on Streams as well. > >>> > >>> How does this relate to Kafka Streams "version probing" implementation? > >>> How can we exploit the new `ProtocolVersion` in Streams to improve > >>> "version probing" ? I have a rough idea, but would like to hear more > >>> details. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 60) Section "Recommended Upgrade Procedure" > >>> > >>>> Set the `stream.rebalancing.mode` to `upgrading`, which will force the > >>> stream application to stay with protocol type "consumer". > >>> > >>> This config is not discussed in the KIP and appears in this section > >>> without context. Can you elaborate about it? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -Matthias > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 3/29/19 6:20 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > >>>> Bump up on this discussion thread. I've added a few new drawings for > >>> better > >>>> illustration, would really appreciate your feedbacks. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Guozhang > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:17 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hello Boyang, > >>>>> > >>>>> I've made another thorough pass over this KIP and I'd like to spilt > it > >>>>> into two parts: the first part, covered in KIP-429 would be touching > >> on > >>>>> Consumer Coordinator only to have incremental rebalance protocol in > >>> place. > >>>>> The second part (for now I've reserved KIP number 444 for it) would > >>> contain > >>>>> all the changes on StreamsPartitionAssginor to allow warming up new > >>>>> members. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think the first part, a.k.a. the current updated KIP-429 is ready > >> for > >>>>> review and discussions again. Would love to hear people's feedbacks > >> and > >>>>> ideas. > >>>>> > >>>>> Guozhang > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:09 AM Boyang Chen <bche...@outlook.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks Guozhang for the great questions. Answers are inlined: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. I'm still not sure if it's worthwhile to add a new type of > >> "learner > >>>>>> task" in addition to "standby task": if the only difference is that > >> for > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> latter, we would consider workload balance while for the former we > >>> would > >>>>>> not, I think we can just adjust the logic of StickyTaskAssignor a > bit > >>> to > >>>>>> break that difference. Adding a new type of task would be adding a > >> lot > >>> of > >>>>>> code complexity, so if we can still piggy-back the logic on a > >>> standby-task > >>>>>> I would prefer to do so. > >>>>>> In the proposal we stated that we are not adding a new type of task > >>>>>> implementation. The > >>>>>> learner task shall share the same implementation with normal standby > >>>>>> task, only that we > >>>>>> shall tag the standby task with learner and prioritize the learner > >>> tasks > >>>>>> replay effort. > >>>>>> 2. One thing that's still not clear from the KIP wiki itself is > which > >>>>>> layer > >>>>>> would the logic be implemented at. Although for most KIPs we would > >> not > >>>>>> require internal implementation details but only public facing API > >>>>>> updates, > >>>>>> for a KIP like this I think it still requires to flesh out details > on > >>> the > >>>>>> implementation design. More specifically: today Streams embed a full > >>>>>> fledged Consumer client, which hard-code a ConsumerCoordinator > >> inside, > >>>>>> Streams then injects a StreamsPartitionAssignor to its pluggable > >>>>>> PartitionAssignor interface and inside the StreamsPartitionAssignor > >> we > >>>>>> also > >>>>>> have a TaskAssignor interface whose default implementation is > >>>>>> StickyPartitionAssignor. Streams partition assignor logic today > sites > >>> in > >>>>>> the latter two classes. Hence the hierarchy today is: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> KafkaConsumer -> ConsumerCoordinator -> StreamsPartitionAssignor -> > >>>>>> StickyTaskAssignor. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We need to think about where the proposed implementation would take > >>> place > >>>>>> at, and personally I think it is not the best option to inject all > of > >>> them > >>>>>> into the StreamsPartitionAssignor / StickyTaskAssignor since the > >> logic > >>> of > >>>>>> "triggering another rebalance" etc would require some coordinator > >> logic > >>>>>> which is hard to mimic at PartitionAssignor level. On the other > hand, > >>>>>> since > >>>>>> we are embedding a KafkaConsumer client as a whole we cannot just > >>> replace > >>>>>> ConsumerCoordinator with a specialized StreamsCoordinator like > >> Connect > >>>>>> does > >>>>>> in KIP-415. So I'd like to maybe split the current proposal in both > >>>>>> consumer layer and streams-assignor layer like we did in > >>> KIP-98/KIP-129. > >>>>>> And then the key thing to consider is how to cut off the boundary so > >>> that > >>>>>> the modifications we push to ConsumerCoordinator would be beneficial > >>>>>> universally for any consumers, while keep the Streams-specific logic > >> at > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> assignor level. > >>>>>> Yes, that's also my ideal plan. The details for the implementation > >> are > >>>>>> depicted > >>>>>> in this doc< > >>>>>> > >>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1me2a5wvxAZT1QE6HkwyDl7C2TiBQlKN3Dpw_I1ro91U/edit#heading=h.qix74qdmekae > >>>> , > >>> [ > >>> > >> > https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/DXWMyKNE9rFFIv7TNX56Q41QwqYp8ynivwWSJHHORqSRkoQxtraW2bqiB-NRUGAMYKkt8A=w1200-h630-p > >>> ]< > >>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1me2a5wvxAZT1QE6HkwyDl7C2TiBQlKN3Dpw_I1ro91U/edit#heading=h.qix74qdmekae > >>>> > >>> > >>> [External] KStream Smooth Auto-scaling Implementation Plan< > >>> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1me2a5wvxAZT1QE6HkwyDl7C2TiBQlKN3Dpw_I1ro91U/edit#heading=h.qix74qdmekae > >>>> > >>> docs.google.com > >>> KStream Incremental Rebalancing Implementation Plan Authors: Boyang > Chen, > >>> Guozhang Wang KIP link Stage: [Draft | Review | Approved] Background We > >>> initiated KIP-429 for the promotion of incremental rebalancing work for > >>> KStream. Behind the scene, there is non-trivial amount of effort that > >> needs > >>> to... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>> and I have explained the reasoning on why we want to push a > >>>>>> global change of replacing ConsumerCoordinator with > >> StreamCoordinator. > >>>>>> The motivation > >>>>>> is that KIP space is usually used for public & algorithm level > >> change, > >>>>>> not for internal > >>>>>> implementation details. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 3. Depending on which design direction we choose, our migration plan > >>> would > >>>>>> also be quite different. For example, if we stay with > >>> ConsumerCoordinator > >>>>>> whose protocol type is "consumer" still, and we can manage to make > >> all > >>>>>> changes agnostic to brokers as well as to old versioned consumers, > >> then > >>>>>> our > >>>>>> migration plan could be much easier. > >>>>>> Yes, the upgrade plan was designed to take the new StreamCoordinator > >>>>>> approach > >>>>>> which means we shall define a new protocol type. For existing > >>> application > >>>>>> we could only > >>>>>> maintain the same `consumer` protocol type is because current broker > >>> only > >>>>>> allows > >>>>>> change of protocol type when the consumer group is empty. It is of > >>> course > >>>>>> user-unfriendly to force > >>>>>> a wipe-out for the entire application, and I don't think maintaining > >>> old > >>>>>> protocol type would greatly > >>>>>> impact ongoing services using new stream coordinator. WDYT? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 4. I think one major issue related to this KIP is that today, in the > >>>>>> StickyPartitionAssignor, we always try to honor stickiness over > >>> workload > >>>>>> balance, and hence "learner task" is needed to break this priority, > >> but > >>>>>> I'm > >>>>>> wondering if we can have a better solution within sticky task > >> assignor > >>>>>> that > >>>>>> accommodate this? > >>>>>> Great question! That's what I explained in the proposal, which is > >> that > >>> we > >>>>>> should breakdown our > >>>>>> delivery into different stages. At very beginning, our goal is to > >>> trigger > >>>>>> learner task assignment only on > >>>>>> `new` hosts, where we shall leverage leader's knowledge of previous > >>> round > >>>>>> of rebalance to figure out. After > >>>>>> stage one, our goal is to have a smooth scaling up experience, but > >> the > >>>>>> task balance problem is kind of orthogonal. > >>>>>> The load balance problem is a much broader topic than auto scaling, > >>> which > >>>>>> I figure worth discussing within > >>>>>> this KIP's context since it's a naturally next-step, but wouldn't be > >>> the > >>>>>> main topic. > >>>>>> Learner task or auto scaling support should be treated as `a helpful > >>>>>> mechanism to reach load balance`, but not `an algorithm defining > load > >>>>>> balance`. It would be great if you could share some insights of the > >>> stream > >>>>>> task balance, which eventually helps us to break out of the > KIP-429's > >>> scope > >>>>>> and even define a separate KIP to focus on task weight & assignment > >>> logic > >>>>>> improvement. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Also thank you for making improvement on the KIP context and > >>> organization! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best, > >>>>>> Boyang > >>>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>>> From: Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 6:00 AM > >>>>>> To: dev > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-429 : Smooth Auto-Scaling for Kafka > >> Streams > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hello Boyang, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I've just made a quick pass on the KIP and here are some thoughts. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Meta: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. I'm still not sure if it's worthwhile to add a new type of > >> "learner > >>>>>> task" in addition to "standby task": if the only difference is that > >> for > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> latter, we would consider workload balance while for the former we > >>> would > >>>>>> not, I think we can just adjust the logic of StickyTaskAssignor a > bit > >>> to > >>>>>> break that difference. Adding a new type of task would be adding a > >> lot > >>> of > >>>>>> code complexity, so if we can still piggy-back the logic on a > >>> standby-task > >>>>>> I would prefer to do so. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2. One thing that's still not clear from the KIP wiki itself is > which > >>>>>> layer > >>>>>> would the logic be implemented at. Although for most KIPs we would > >> not > >>>>>> require internal implementation details but only public facing API > >>>>>> updates, > >>>>>> for a KIP like this I think it still requires to flesh out details > on > >>> the > >>>>>> implementation design. More specifically: today Streams embed a full > >>>>>> fledged Consumer client, which hard-code a ConsumerCoordinator > >> inside, > >>>>>> Streams then injects a StreamsPartitionAssignor to its plugable > >>>>>> PartitionAssignor interface and inside the StreamsPartitionAssignor > >> we > >>>>>> also > >>>>>> have a TaskAssignor interface whose default implementation is > >>>>>> StickyPartitionAssignor. Streams partition assignor logic today > sites > >>> in > >>>>>> the latter two classes. Hence the hierarchy today is: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> KafkaConsumer -> ConsumerCoordinator -> StreamsPartitionAssignor -> > >>>>>> StickyTaskAssignor. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We need to think about where the proposed implementation would take > >>> place > >>>>>> at, and personally I think it is not the best option to inject all > of > >>> them > >>>>>> into the StreamsPartitionAssignor / StickyTaskAssignor since the > >> logic > >>> of > >>>>>> "triggering another rebalance" etc would require some coordinator > >> logic > >>>>>> which is hard to mimic at PartitionAssignor level. On the other > hand, > >>>>>> since > >>>>>> we are embedding a KafkaConsumer client as a whole we cannot just > >>> replace > >>>>>> ConsumerCoordinator with a specialized StreamsCoordinator like > >> Connect > >>>>>> does > >>>>>> in KIP-415. So I'd like to maybe split the current proposal in both > >>>>>> consumer layer and streams-assignor layer like we did in > >>> KIP-98/KIP-129. > >>>>>> And then the key thing to consider is how to cut off the boundary so > >>> that > >>>>>> the modifications we push to ConsumerCoordinator would be beneficial > >>>>>> universally for any consumers, while keep the Streams-specific logic > >> at > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> assignor level. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 3. Depending on which design direction we choose, our migration plan > >>> would > >>>>>> also be quite different. For example, if we stay with > >>> ConsumerCoordinator > >>>>>> whose protocol type is "consumer" still, and we can manage to make > >> all > >>>>>> changes agnostic to brokers as well as to old versioned consumers, > >> then > >>>>>> our > >>>>>> migration plan could be much easier. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 4. I think one major issue related to this KIP is that today, in the > >>>>>> StickyPartitionAssignor, we always try to honor stickiness over > >>> workload > >>>>>> balance, and hence "learner task" is needed to break this priority, > >> but > >>>>>> I'm > >>>>>> wondering if we can have a better solution within sticky task > >> assignor > >>>>>> that > >>>>>> accommodate this? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Minor: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. The idea of two rebalances have also been discussed in > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6145. So we should add > >> the > >>>>>> reference on the wiki page as well. > >>>>>> 2. Could you also add a section describing how the subscription / > >>>>>> assignment metadata will be re-formatted? Without this information > it > >>> is > >>>>>> hard to get to the bottom of your idea. For example in the "Leader > >>>>>> Transfer > >>>>>> Before Scaling" section, I'm not sure why "S2 doesn't know S4 is new > >>>>>> member" > >>>>>> and hence would blindly obey stickiness over workload balance > >>> requirement. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Guozhang > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:05 AM Boyang Chen <bche...@outlook.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hey community friends, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm gladly inviting you to have a look at the proposal to add > >>>>>> incremental > >>>>>>> rebalancing to Kafka Streams, A.K.A auto-scaling support. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-429%3A+Smooth+Auto-Scaling+for+Kafka+Streams > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Special thanks to Guozhang for giving great guidances and important > >>>>>>> feedbacks while making this KIP! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> Boyang > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> -- Guozhang > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> -- Guozhang > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> -- Guozhang > >> > > > > -- -- Guozhang
