Hey Otis, Yeah, Gwen is correct. The future from the send will be satisfied when the response is received so it will be exactly the same as the performance of the sync producer previously.
-Jay On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > If I understood the code and Jay correctly - if you wait for the > future it will be a similar delay to that of the old sync producer. > > Put another way, if you test it out and see longer delays than the > sync producer had, we need to find out why and fix it. > > Gwen > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Otis Gospodnetic > <otis.gospodne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Nope, unfortunately it can't do that. X is a remote app, doesn't listen > to > > anything external, calls Y via HTTPS. So X has to decide what to do with > > its data based on Y's synchronous response. It has to block until Y > > responds. And it wouldn't be pretty, I think, because nobody wants to > run > > apps that talk to remove servers and hang on to connections more than > they > > have to. But perhaps that is the only way? Or maybe the answer to "I'm > > guessing the delay would be more or less the same as if the Producer was > > using SYNC mode?" is YES, in which case the connection from X to Y would > be > > open for just as long as with a SYNC producer running in Y? > > > > Thanks, > > Otis > > -- > > Monitoring * Alerting * Anomaly Detection * Centralized Log Management > > Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > >> Can Y have a callback that will handle the notification to X? > >> In this case, perhaps Y can be async and X can buffer the data until > >> the callback triggers and says "all good" (or resend if the callback > >> indicates an error) > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Otis Gospodnetic > >> <otis.gospodne...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > Thanks for the info. Here's the use case. We have something up > stream > >> > sending data, say a log shipper called X. It sends it to some remote > >> > component Y. Y is the Kafka Producer and it puts data into Kafka. > But Y > >> > needs to send a reply to X and tell it whether it successfully put all > >> its > >> > data into Kafka. If it did not, Y wants to tell X to buffer data > locally > >> > and resend it later. > >> > > >> > If producer is ONLY async, Y can't easily do that. Or maybe Y would > just > >> > need to wait for the Future to come back and only then send the > response > >> > back to X? If so, I'm guessing the delay would be more or less the > same > >> as > >> > if the Producer was using SYNC mode? > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Otis > >> > -- > >> > Monitoring * Alerting * Anomaly Detection * Centralized Log Management > >> > Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Yeah as Gwen says there is no sync/async mode anymore. There is a new > >> >> configuration which does a lot of what async did in terms of allowing > >> >> batching: > >> >> > >> >> batch.size - This is the target amount of data per partition the > server > >> >> will attempt to batch together. > >> >> linger.ms - This is the time the producer will wait for more data > to be > >> >> sent to better batch up writes. The default is 0 (send immediately). > So > >> if > >> >> you set this to 50 ms the client will send immediately if it has > already > >> >> filled up its batch, otherwise it will wait to accumulate the number > of > >> >> bytes given by batch.size. > >> >> > >> >> To send asynchronously you do > >> >> producer.send(record) > >> >> whereas to block on a response you do > >> >> producer.send(record).get(); > >> >> which will wait for acknowledgement from the server. > >> >> > >> >> One advantage of this model is that the client will do it's best to > >> batch > >> >> under the covers even if linger.ms=0. It will do this by batching > any > >> data > >> >> that arrives while another send is in progress into a single > >> >> request--giving a kind of "group commit" effect. > >> >> > >> >> The hope is that this will be both simpler to understand (a single > api > >> that > >> >> always works the same) and more powerful (you always get a response > with > >> >> error and offset information whether or not you choose to use it). > >> >> > >> >> -Jay > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > If you want to emulate the old sync producer behavior, you need to > set > >> >> > the batch size to 1 (in producer config) and wait on the future > you > >> >> > get from Send (i.e. future.get) > >> >> > > >> >> > I can't think of good reasons to do so, though. > >> >> > > >> >> > Gwen > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Otis Gospodnetic > >> >> > <otis.gospodne...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > Hi, > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Is the plan for New Producer to have ONLY async mode? I'm asking > >> >> because > >> >> > > of this info from the Wiki: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > - The producer will always attempt to batch data and will > always > >> >> > > immediately return a SendResponse which acts as a Future to > allow > >> >> the > >> >> > > client to await the completion of the request. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > The word "always" makes me think there will be no sync mode. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Thanks, > >> >> > > Otis > >> >> > > -- > >> >> > > Monitoring * Alerting * Anomaly Detection * Centralized Log > >> Management > >> >> > > Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/ > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >
