Any thought on this?
--
Yuri Mizushima
yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
On 2021/12/07 13:57, "Yuri Mizushima" <yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp> wrote:
Enrico,
Thank you for your comment.
> IIUC with this change the client will control which metrics are reported
by
> the broker ?
From the protocol perspective, yes.
However, the main point of this change is not to "control" metrics by the
client side,
but to make the broker aggregate partitioned topic's producer metrics
explicitly.
Do you suggest adding a broker config that
configures whether partitioned producer stats are aggregated by
producerName instead of
introducing a backward compatibility key (i.e., partial_producer_supported)
on the client-side?
It is simple. However, I think we can't enable the config until all clients
are updated.
What do you think?
Regards,
--
Yuri Mizushima
yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
On 2021/12/02 17:37, "Enrico Olivelli" <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yuri,
IIUC with this change the client will control which metrics are
reported by
the broker ?
I am not sure it is a good idea, because metrics are usually managed by
the
owners of the brokers, who sometimes are not the same who run the
clients.
Also, I am not sure if this way it is possible for the client to force
the
Broker to create many metrics and create some kind of damage.
Would it be better to add a Broker configuration flag to turn on this
feature ? I mean to allow the client to select the type of metrics ?
Enrico
Il giorno gio 2 dic 2021 alle ore 03:00 Yuri Mizushima <
yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp> ha scritto:
> Do you have any comments?
> If there are no comments by Dec. 7, I will close the discussion and
rebase
> the PR commit to current master.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Yuri Mizushima
> yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
>
>
> On 2021/11/16 15:46, "Yuri Mizushima" <yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp> wrote:
>
> Dear Pulsar community,
>
> I have created a new PR
>
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fpull%2F12401&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-corp.jp%7C7e19573ee36d4edf3d6c08d9b93df247%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637744498709588901%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=qcUOpCoQZZH%2B%2FlobXMhgcNXmlaSyaahXMel9YBmGEWs%3D&reserved=0
> for stats aggregation,
> but I didn't discuss about the wire protocol change. I hope we
will
> discuss it here.
>
> Currently, partitioned producer can't aggregate by any key such as
> cnx, producerId, producerName, and so on.
> I think we need to add any aggregation system.
> Therefore, added new aggregation policy as producerName (with
client
> side implementation).
>
> New protocol field partial_producer_supported is not used for
stats
> aggregation. It is used for backward compatibility.
>
>
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fpull%2F12401%2Ffiles%23diff-f29399fed32e0916cf28452ba71078a3ae5ed77bbaef9f52a925165d8ee66cfdR489&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-corp.jp%7C7e19573ee36d4edf3d6c08d9b93df247%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637744498709588901%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=wFBZwBwQ4yGUF9VlUdoOhKb4K54ZF0yGwv9kycvxoqI%3D&reserved=0
>
> In my understanding, if introduce new stats aggregation key to
client
> side,
> need a way to determine whether the feature is enabled at client
side.
> For example, whether the producer has specific field or metadata,
> the version (e.g. protocol version) is greater than threshold,
etc.
>
> Of course, if we can introduce aggregation feature without adding
any
> new key or implementations from client side,
> we can support the feature not only new client but also old one.
>
> I'm looking forward to your opinions or suggestions to this PR.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Yuri Mizushima
> yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
>
>
> On 2021/05/11 14:26, "Yuri Mizushima" <yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Pulsar Community,
>
> > I will submit the next PR about PartitionedTopicStats later.
> I submitted the next PR for this PIP. If you have any suggestions,
> please comment to this PR.
>
>
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fpull%2F10534&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-corp.jp%7C7e19573ee36d4edf3d6c08d9b93df247%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637744498709598895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=rTJBlQb5ObE7SaAvTrTiM2HA3yhKyPS%2BxuPcWXv6luI%3D&reserved=0
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Yuri Mizushima
> yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
>
>
> "Yuri Mizushima" <yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp> wrote:
>
> Dear Pulsar Community,
>
> I submitted the PR for this PIP.
>
>
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fpull%2F10279&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-corp.jp%7C7e19573ee36d4edf3d6c08d9b93df247%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637744498709598895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=d20Pg8yDYGd2dVb0iJo9eeRZh2YymScPO7wwVCIiAL8%3D&reserved=0
>
> This is a part of implementations.
> I will submit the next PR about PartitionedTopicStats later.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Yuri Mizushima
> yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
>
>
> "Yuri Mizushima" <yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp> wrote:
>
> Sijie,
>
> After sending previous mail, I watched meeting recording
and
> understand about authn/authz issue.
> Therefore, I updated the PIP document.
>
>
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fwiki%2FPIP-79%253A-Reduce-redundant-producers-from-partitioned-producer&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-corp.jp%7C7e19573ee36d4edf3d6c08d9b93df247%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637744498709598895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=moRiB9I9Zwz%2FFcDAWxza1%2BV6Xcl1xf1pD524%2BMZB2Lk%3D&reserved=0
>
> Regards,
> --
> Yuri Mizushima
> yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
>
>
> "Yuri Mizushima" <yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp> wrote:
>
> Sijie,
>
> > If the lazy-loading approach sounds attractive to
you
> and you like it,
> > maybe the next step is to update the PIP, what do
you
> think?
>
> I think so too. I will update the PIP after
discussing the
> authn/authz issue.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Yuri Mizushima
> yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
>
>
> "Sijie Guo" <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Yuri,
>
> Regarding the authn/authz issue, @Matteo Merli <
> mme...@apache.org> can
> probably chime in more about that part.
>
> If the lazy-loading approach sounds attractive to
you
> and you like it,
> maybe the next step is to update the PIP, what do
you
> think?
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 6:57 PM Yuri Mizushima <
> yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp>
> wrote:
>
> > Michael,
> >
> > Thank you for your comment!
> >
> > > Which Pulsar Clients will benefit from this
> proposal?
> > I think that this proposal will be useful to any
> clients.
> > In my schedule, if this proposal is accepted
then I
> will implement this
> > feature to Java client.
> > If needed, then implement same feature to other
> clients such as C++, Go,
> > etc.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Yuri Mizushima
> > yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
> >
> >
> > "Michael Marshall" <mikemars...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Hi Yuri and Sijie,
> >
> > I definitely like the idea of lazily
creating
> producers as well as
> > introducing a way to provide custom routing
logic.
> >
> > Which Pulsar Clients will benefit from this
> proposal? I’d love to see
> > this feature in the go client.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael Marshall
> >
> > > On Feb 7, 2021, at 9:53 PM, Yuri
Mizushima <
> yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Sijie,
> > >
> > > Thank you for sharing!
> > >
> > > First, I considered your suggestion.
> > > I think these implementations sound good.
> > >
> > > I think we should consider the State of
> partitioned producer: Ready,
> > Connecting, etc.
> > > Currently, partitioned producer gets
"Ready"
> only when all producers
> > connect to Broker correctly.
> > >
> >
>
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fblob%2Ffa41d02bebfd841767846240f3ae574047f118f0%2Fpulsar-client%2Fsrc%2Fmain%2Fjava%2Forg%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fclient%2Fimpl%2FPartitionedProducerImpl.java%23L146&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-corp.jp%7C7e19573ee36d4edf3d6c08d9b93df247%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637744498709598895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Wsfwi9SoiFizW1ATvt5nvb6%2BHFRGiWQzeKNH06hBt1I%3D&reserved=0
> > > It seems that we should change meaning of
> state (or change handling)
> > if we introduce the lazy-load feature.
> > > To guarantee the message ordering (e.g.
using
> partitionKey),
> > partitioned producer should stop (or don't send
> messages to be routed to
> > unavailable partition) when producer can't
connect
> to one of partition.
> > >
> > > Secondly, I considered Matteo's comments.
> > > I couldn't understand well about issue of
> authn/authz. Please tell
> > me more detail.
> > >
> > > I wrote "connection" as number of
producers
> which connect to broker.
> > Also, TCP connections between partitioned
producer
> and broker will be less
> > than or equal to current in some cases. I'll
show a
> case below.
> > >
> > > Suppose
> > > * cluster has Broker0, 1, 2
> > > * partitioned topic has 5 partitions
> > > * limit conf is 3 partitions
> > > * loadbalance partitions as below
> > > - Broker0: partition-0, partition-1
> > > - Broker1: partition-2
> > > - Broker2: partition-3, partition-4
> > >
> > > Currently, client will create 3
connections
> (Broker0, 1, 2). If
> > client uses limit conf and elects partitions
such as
> [0, 1, 2], then client
> > will create 2 connections (Broker0, 1). Of
course,
> if client elects
> > partitions such as [0, 2, 3], then client will
still
> create 3 connections.
> > >
> > > I'd like to decrease number of producers.
I
> think that resources of
> > broker will be improved slightly by this feature
> because broker has list of
> > producers by some classes such as ServerCnx,
> AbstractTopic.
> > >
> >
>
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fblob%2Ffa41d02bebfd841767846240f3ae574047f118f0%2Fpulsar-broker%2Fsrc%2Fmain%2Fjava%2Forg%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fbroker%2Fservice%2FServerCnx.java%23L1096-L1097&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-corp.jp%7C7e19573ee36d4edf3d6c08d9b93df247%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637744498709598895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=DVk%2BCh8F0VeWBay%2FiK7O%2BjCjzZrakOj7257POW8uEgA%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> >
>
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fblob%2Ffa41d02bebfd841767846240f3ae574047f118f0%2Fpulsar-broker%2Fsrc%2Fmain%2Fjava%2Forg%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fbroker%2Fservice%2FAbstractTopic.java%23L577&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-corp.jp%7C7e19573ee36d4edf3d6c08d9b93df247%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637744498709598895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=JkkE01hdRUB%2B%2BAwykUKuIZmcbn%2FBfBEHe2oeO7%2BbuQs%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > > In my case, unspecified number of
producers
> will connect to the same
> > partitioned topic with different rate. We need
to
> set the number of
> > partitions according to the high-rate producer.
> > > However, on the other hand, this number is
> excessively large for
> > low-rate producers.
> > > I want to reduce such redundant producers
for
> resource efficiency.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Yuri Mizushima
> > > yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
> > >
> > >
> > > "Sijie Guo" <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Yuri,
> > >
> > > In today's community meeting, Matteo
shared
> some of his thoughts
> > about this
> > > PIP.
> > >
> > > You can find some meeting notes here:
> > >
> >
>
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F19dXkVXeU2q_nHmkG8zURjKnYlvD96TbKf5KjYyASsOE%2Fedit%23bookmark%3Did.rezbt4xmjxpz&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-corp.jp%7C7e19573ee36d4edf3d6c08d9b93df247%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637744498709598895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=DkvO95bjPq75PtpbAKjATwmFonPWBqPn%2B38LukhiFXg%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > > Matteo can also chime in as well.
> > >
> > > - Sijie
> > >
> > >> On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 7:21 PM Yuri
> Mizushima <
> > yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> Sijie,
> > >> Thank you for your reply!
> > >> I'll check it.
> > >> Regards,
> > >> --
> > >> Yuri Mizushima
> > >> yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
> > >> "Sijie Guo" <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Yuri,
> > >> Thank you for bringing this up! This is
a
> super helpful proposal!
> > >> The problem is very similar to what an
RPC
> framework (like Finagle)
> > >> with
> > >> client-side load balancing has.
> > >> An RPC framework with a client-side
> load-balancing mechanism needs
> > to
> > >> send
> > >> requests across multiple nodes. If you
have
> an RPC service that has
> > >> thousands of nodes, there are thousands
of
> clients connecting to
> > that
> > >> RPC
> > >> service. How to reduce the connections
and
> how to effectively load
> > >> balance
> > >> requests across thousands of nodes are
the
> problems that a
> > client-side
> > >> loading technology needs to solve. If
you
> think about "partition"
> > as
> > >> "node"
> > >> and "partitioned producer" as "RPC
client",
> the problem is exactly
> > the
> > >> same. Finagle (the Twitter RPC
framework)
> has implemented a lot of
> > >> client-side
> > >> load-balancing algorithms
> > >> <
> >
>
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.github.io%2Ffinagle%2Fguide%2FClients.html%23load-balancing&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-corp.jp%7C7e19573ee36d4edf3d6c08d9b93df247%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637744498709598895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=6Kf70x0qgzsLC7Kzp7JtDF5TW9uS1WnU8FQW6OdtDHI%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > >> and
> > >> there are some great articles that you
can
> reference
> > >> <
> > >>
> >
>
https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/infrastructure/2019/daperture-load-balancer.html
> > >> .
> > >> I agree with the direction of
introducing a
> mechanism to reduce the
> > >> number
> > >> of producers in a partitioned topic
> producer. However, I have a
> > concern
> > >> about introducing
`.numPartitionsLimit(10)`
> directly to the
> > producer
> > >> builder. It limits the possibility to
> implement different
> > algorithms on
> > >> selecting partitions.
> > >> So instead of directly implementing the
> logic within the
> > partitioned
> > >> topic
> > >> producer, I think the proposal can be
broken
> into two parts:
> > >> 1) Introduce some kind of lazy-loading
> mechanism in the partitioned
> > >> producer to initialize the producers for
> partitions lazily. I.e.,
> > only
> > >> initialize a producer when the message
> router selects a partition.
> > >> 2) Implement a message router that only
> selects one or N
> > partitions.
> > >> In this way, the partitioned producer is
> only responsible for
> > managing
> > >> a
> > >> collection of producers, and the message
> router is responsible for
> > >> selecting the partitions. This allows
people
> to be able to
> > implement
> > >> different message routers. We can even
adopt
> the client-side load
> > >> balancing
> > >> algorithms from Finagle.
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Sijie
> > >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 7:18 PM Yuri
> Mizushima <
> > yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> I notice that PIP-78 has already
assigned to
> another issue.
> > >>
> >
>
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmail-archives.apache.org%2Fmod_mbox%2Fpulsar-dev%2F202101.mbox%2F%253CCAG%253DTQOrPH49v9ToDE_aeQzEiDC%252BEgSR61ERoqanpWfQGvEB_Vw%2540mail.gmail.com%253E&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-corp.jp%7C7e19573ee36d4edf3d6c08d9b93df247%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637744498709598895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=dOyeyrkpxoQLJOEiWrXfqymuVP7eMa0oyeJLeUkdikU%3D&reserved=0
> > >>> So, I'll change the PIP number to 79.
> > >>
> >
>
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fwiki%2FPIP-79%253A-Reduce-redundant-producers-from-partitioned-producer&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-corp.jp%7C7e19573ee36d4edf3d6c08d9b93df247%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637744498709598895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=moRiB9I9Zwz%2FFcDAWxza1%2BV6Xcl1xf1pD524%2BMZB2Lk%3D&reserved=0
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> --
> > >>> Yuri Mizushima
> > >>> yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
> > >>> "Yuri Mizushima"
<yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp>
> wrote:
> > >>> Dear Pulsar community,
> > >>> When partitioned producer connects to
> partitioned topic,
> > >>> sometimes doesn't need to connect to
all of
> partitions depending
> > >> on
> > >>> rate, routing mode, etc.
> > >>> So, I drafted a PIP about reducing
> redundant producers from
> > >>> partitioned producer.
> > >>> I'd like to use system resources (e.g.
> connections between
> > >> Client and
> > >>> Broker, memory usage of both Client and
> Broker)
> > >>> more efficiently by this feature.
> > >>
> >
>
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fwiki%2FPIP-78%253A-Reduce-redundant-producers-from-partitioned-producer&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-corp.jp%7C7e19573ee36d4edf3d6c08d9b93df247%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637744498709598895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=oreRJxiW36BXaSjcJkdhpu1L%2FXpKxkhJfOtT7TTpssQ%3D&reserved=0
> > >>> Feel free to ask me any questions or
> suggestions, etc.
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>> --
> > >>> Yuri Mizushima
> > >>> yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
