> Interesting, I had missed that. Is it worth updating the documentation to > make that more explicit, or do other people find it clear enough?
I agree, it's easy to miss, we missed that information too - we noticed it only few days ago, while we've been using Kafka for weeks and we spent long hours reading the docs :-) I think that listing possible values suggests that they're the only valid ones, while adding more general info on <positive number>, <negative number> with a sample explanation for 1 and -1 would be more helpful and easier to notice. M. On 22 July 2014 03:20, Daniel Compton <d...@danielcompton.net> wrote: > Interesting, I had missed that. Is it worth updating the documentation to > make that more explicit, or do other people find it clear enough? > > > On 22 July 2014 12:47, Jiang Wu (Pricehistory) (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX -) < > jwu...@bloomberg.net> wrote: > > > The document says "typical" values, not "valid" values, are 0, 1, -1. In > > fact any integer will be accepted. > > > > From: users@kafka.apache.org At: Jul 21 2014 18:54:56 > > To: users@kafka.apache.org > > Subject: Re: request.required.acks=-1 under high data volume > > > > In the docs for 0.8.1.1, there are only three options for > > request.required.acks > > <https://kafka.apache.org/documentation.html#producerconfigs>, {-1, 0, > 1}. > > How is request.required.acks=3 a valid configuration property? Am I > reading > > it incorrectly or are the docs out of date? > > > > > > On 18 July 2014 06:25, Neha Narkhede <neha.narkh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1546 to track the > > > improvement. It is also a good ticket for some one to jump on, to learn > > > more about the replication code base. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Neha > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, it is true that if all replicas fall out of isr, ack with -1 is > > the > > > > same as 1. Normally, we don't expect replicas to fall out of isr > > though. > > > > You may want to read > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/FAQ#FAQ-HowtoreducechurnsinISR?WhendoesabrokerleavetheISR > > > > ? > > > > to see how to minimize that. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Jiang Wu (Pricehistory) (BLOOMBERG/ > > 731 > > > > LEX -) <jwu...@bloomberg.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Jay, > > > > > Thanks for explaining the lag detection mechanism. I think my real > > > > concern > > > > > is from the description of request.required.acks=-1 from kafka's > > > > document: > > > > > "-1, which means that the producer gets an acknowledgement after > all > > > > > in-sync replicas have received the data. This option provides the > > best > > > > > durability, we guarantee that no messages will be lost as long as > at > > > > least > > > > > one in sync replica remains." > > > > > Since it states that acks=-1 provides the best durability, I had > > > thought > > > > > it's equivalent to acks=3 for a topic with replicas 3. My > > understanding > > > > is > > > > > that, acks=3 provides the best durability for such a topic, better > > than > > > > > ack=2 and ack=1. But because followers may fail out of sync, > acks=-1 > > > > > actually provides the same level of durability as acks=1. It seems > to > > > me > > > > > there's inconsistency between the behavior of ack=-1 and its > > > description, > > > > > therefore one of them may need to be modified. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Jiang > > > > > > > > > > From: users@kafka.apache.org At: Jul 11 2014 18:27:46 > > > > > To: JIANG WU (PRICEHISTORY) (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX -), > > > > users@kafka.apache.org > > > > > Cc: wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > Subject: Re: request.required.acks=-1 under high data volume > > > > > > > > > > I think the root problem is that replicas are falling behind and > > hence > > > > > are effectively "failed" under normal load and also that you have > > > > > unclean leader election enabled which "solves" this catastrophic > > > > > failure by electing new leaders without complete data. > > > > > > > > > > Starting in 0.8.2 you will be able to selectively disable unclean > > > > > leader election. > > > > > > > > > > The root problem for the spuriously failing replicas is the > > > > > configuration replica.lag.max.messages. This configuration defaults > > to > > > > > 4000. But throughput can be really high, like a million messages > per > > > > > second. At a million messages per second, 4k messages of lag is > only > > > > > 4ms behind, which can happen for all kinds of reasons (e.g. just > > > > > normal linux i/o latency jitter). > > > > > > > > > > Jiang, I suspect you can resolve your issue by just making this > > higher. > > > > > > > > > > However, raising this setting is not a panacea. The higher you > raise > > > > > it the longer it will take to detect a partition that is actually > > > > > falling behind. > > > > > > > > > > We have been discussing this setting, and if you think about it the > > > > > setting is actually somewhat impossible to set right in a cluster > > > > > which has both low volume and high volume topics/partitions. For > the > > > > > low-volume topic it will take a very long time to detect a lagging > > > > > replica, and for the high-volume topic it will have > false-positives. > > > > > One approach to making this easier would be to have the > configuration > > > > > be something like replica.lag.max.ms and translate this into a > > number > > > > > of messages dynamically based on the throughput of the partition. > > > > > > > > > > -Jay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Jiang Wu (Pricehistory) > (BLOOMBERG/ > > > > > 731 LEX -) <jwu...@bloomberg.net> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > > > > > > > > > KAFKA-1537 is created. > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/i#browse/KAFKA-1537 > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll try to see if I'm able to submit a patch for this, but > cannot > > > > > commit a date, so please feel free to assign it to others. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Jiang > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > > To: JIANG WU (PRICEHISTORY) (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX -), > > > > > users@kafka.apache.org > > > > > > At: Jul 11 2014 16:42:55 > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Jiang, > > > > > > > > > > > > That is a valid point. The reason we design ack=-1 to be "receive > > > acks > > > > > from > > > > > > replicas in ISR" is basically trading consistency for > > availability. I > > > > > think > > > > > > instead of change it meaning, we could add another ack, -2 for > > > > instance, > > > > > to > > > > > > specify "receive acks from all replicas" as a favor of > consistency. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since you already did this much investigation would you like to > > file > > > a > > > > > JIRA > > > > > > and submit a patch for this? > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Jiang Wu (Pricehistory) > > (BLOOMBERG/ > > > > 731 > > > > > > LEX -) <jwu...@bloomberg.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, > > > > > >> I'm doing stress and failover tests on a 3 node 0.8.1.1 kafka > > > cluster > > > > > and > > > > > >> have the following observations. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> A topic is created with 1 partition and 3 replications. > > > > > >> request.required.acks is set to -1 for a sync producer. When the > > > > > publishing > > > > > >> speed is high (3M messages, each 2000 bytes, published in lists > of > > > > size > > > > > >> 2000), the two followers will fail out of sync. Only the leader > > > > remains > > > > > in > > > > > >> ISR. But the producer can keep sending. If the leader is killed > > with > > > > > CTR_C, > > > > > >> one follower will become leader, but message loss will happen > > > because > > > > of > > > > > >> the unclean leader election. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> In the same test, request.required.acks=3 gives the desired > > result. > > > > > >> Followers will fail out of sync, but the producer will be > blocked > > > > untill > > > > > >> all followers back to ISR. No data loss is observed in this > case. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> From the code, this turns out to be how it's designed: > > > > > >> if ((requiredAcks < 0 && numAcks >= inSyncReplicas.size) || > > > > > >> (requiredAcks > 0 && numAcks >= requiredAcks)) { > > > > > >> /* > > > > > >> * requiredAcks < 0 means acknowledge after all replicas in ISR > > > > > >> * are fully caught up to the (local) leader's offset > > > > > >> * corresponding to this produce request. > > > > > >> */ > > > > > >> (true, ErrorMapping.NoError) > > > > > >> } > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I'm wondering if it's more reasonable to let > > > request.required.acks=-1 > > > > > mean > > > > > >> "receive acks from all replicas" instead of "receive acks from > > > > replicas > > > > > in > > > > > >> ISR"? As in the above test, follower will fail out sync under > high > > > > > >> publishing volume; that makes request.required.acks=-1 > equivalent > > to > > > > > >> request.required.acks=1. Since the kafka document states > > > > > >> request.required.acks=-1 provides the best durability, one would > > > > expect > > > > > it > > > > > >> is equivalent to request.required.acks=number_of_replications. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Regards, > > > > > >> Jiang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
