Gotcha. That makes sense. OK.
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
> The statement is right, because the other 1x is in the consumer's prefetch
> buffer. It's a bit confusing that the word "pending" in the log line
> counts both the pending queue on the broker and the prefetch buffer on the
> client, but the intent is definitely right. If you have a better word
> ("unconsumed", maybe), you could propose a wording change, but it would be
> wordsmithing the log line rather than changing the actual meaning.
>
> I actually think that the "without an ack" part of that log line is the
> more inaccurate bit; you can be acking messages left and right, but if
> you're doing it slower than they're coming in you're still going to end up
> considered slow eventually.
>
> Tim
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Kevin Burton <bur...@spinn3r.com> wrote:
>
> > This looks like a but. The log message is hard wired to say “*twice* its
> > prefetch limit pending” but the if statement doesn’t have anything like a
> > 2x modifier. So perhaps this log line just needs to be re-written?
> >
> > If you guys agree I’ll create a JIRA for it.
> >
> > if (info.getPrefetchSize() > 1 && matched.size() >
> > info.getPrefetchSize()) {
> > // Slow consumers should log and set their state as such.
> > if (!isSlowConsumer()) {
> > LOG.warn("{}: has twice its prefetch limit pending,
> > without an ack; it appears to be slow", toString());
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
> > Location: *San Francisco, CA*
> > blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
> > … or check out my Google+ profile
> > <https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
> > <http://spinn3r.com>
> >
>
--
Founder/CEO Spinn3r.com
Location: *San Francisco, CA*
blog: http://burtonator.wordpress.com
… or check out my Google+ profile
<https://plus.google.com/102718274791889610666/posts>
<http://spinn3r.com>
