-1

The rate limits that are currently in place are there to protect the Pulsar
service,  to manage  multi-tenancy on the broker. This is not  meant as a
feature to  manage demand side throttling.

In my opinion,  this is best done as a client side feature. There is no
need to add complexity  to  the broker to manage demand side throttling.
Just throttle demand on the client side.



-joe

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 7:54 PM Zixuan Liu <node...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> Zixuan
>
> mattison chao <mattisonc...@gmail.com> 于2022年4月12日周二 09:24写道:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Looks like a very useful feature. Thank you.
> >
> > Best,
> > Mattison
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 at 08:55, PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 4:24 PM Haiting Jiang <jianghait...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Pulsar community,
> > > >
> > > > I created a PIP to add support for subscription level dispatch rate
> > > > limiter setting.
> > > >
> > > > The proposal can be found:
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15094
> > > >
> > > > ----
> > > >
> > > > ## Motivation
> > > >
> > > > Currently, for message dispatch rate limiter in a subscription , we
> > have
> > > 3
> > > > level setting :
> > > > - Broker level setting: configured with
> > > > `dispatchThrottlingRatePerSubscriptionInMsg` and
> > > > `dispatchThrottlingRatePerSubscriptionInByte` in broker.conf
> > > > - Namespace level setting: configured with
> > > >
> `org.apache.pulsar.client.admin.Namespaces#setSubscriptionDispatchRate`
> > > > - Topic level setting: configured with
> > > >
> > >
> >
> `org.apache.pulsar.client.admin.TopicPolicies#setSubscriptionDispatchRate`
> > > >
> > > > As we all know, in the pub-sub messaging model, different subscriber
> of
> > > > the same topic process the messages for various purpose, and they may
> > > have
> > > > different requirement of message dispatch rate limiter. Here are some
> > use
> > > > case in my organization:
> > > > - On the client side, subscriptions have different
> > max-process-capacity.
> > > > If the dispatch rate is too large, they may crush their downstream
> > > services.
> > > > - We are billing base on the max message rate of the subscription.
> Some
> > > > are sensitive to budgets and willing to pay less for lower
> throughput.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ## Goal
> > > >
> > > > Support subscription level dispatch rate limiter setting.
> > > >
> > > > ## API Changes
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. Add client api in org.apache.pulsar.client.admin.TopicPolicies.
> > > > ```
> > > > void getSubscriptionDispatchRate(String topic, String sub) throws
> > > > PulsarAdminException;
> > > > void getSubscriptionDispatchRate(String topic, String sub, boolean
> > > > applied) throws PulsarAdminException;
> > > > void setSubscriptionDispatchRate(String topic, String sub,
> DispatchRate
> > > > dispatchRate) throws PulsarAdminException;
> > > > void removeSubscriptionDispatchRate(String topic, String sub) throws
> > > > PulsarAdminException;
> > > >
> > > > //And the async version of these methods.
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > 2. Add new admin  API
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > > @PUT @DELETE @GET
> > > > @Path("/{tenant}/{namespace}/{topic}/{subName}/dispatchRate")
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > ## Implementation
> > > >
> > > > The rate limiter itself is already implemented with each
> subscription.
> > We
> > > > only need to update the rate limiter settings if subscription level
> > > config
> > > > is set.
> > > > I propose to just add a new field in
> > > > `org.apache.pulsar.common.policies.data.TopicPolicies` to store the
> > data.
> > > > ```
> > > > private Map<String/*SubName*/, DispatchRateImpl>
> > > > subscriptionDispatchRateMap;
> > > > ```
> > > > And subscription level rate limiter setting has higher priority than
> > > topic
> > > > level. We need to calculate the applied value when we create the
> > > > subscription or any level config is changed.
> > > >
> > > > ## Reject Alternatives
> > > > None yet.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Haiting
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to