Not sure I understand your question about flapping. The LeaveGroupRequest
is only sent on a graceful shutdown. If a consumer knows it is going to
shutdown, it is good to proactively make sure the group knows it needs to
rebalance work because some of the partitions that were handled by the
consumer need to be handled by some other group members.

There's no "flapping" in the sense that the leave group requests should
just inform the other members that they need to take over some of the work.
I would normally think of "flapping" as meaning that things start/stop
unnecessarily. In this case, *someone* needs to deal with the rebalance and
pick up the work being dropped by the worker. There's no flapping because
it's a one-time event -- one worker is shutting down, decides to drop the
work, and a rebalance sorts it out and reassigns it to another member of
the group. This happens once and then the "issue" is resolved without any
additional interruptions.

-Ewen

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Pradeep Gollakota <pradeep...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I see... doesn't that cause flapping though?
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava <e...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
> > The coordinator will immediately move the group into a rebalance if it
> > needs it. The reason LeaveGroupRequest was added was to avoid having to
> > wait for the session timeout before completing a rebalance. So aside from
> > the latency of cleanup/committing offests/rejoining after a heartbeat,
> > rolling bounces should be fast for consumer groups.
> >
> > -Ewen
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Pradeep Gollakota <pradeep...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Kafka folks!
> > >
> > > When a consumer is closed, it will issue a LeaveGroupRequest. Does
> anyone
> > > know how long the coordinator waits before reassigning the partitions
> > that
> > > were assigned to the leaving consumer to a new consumer? I ask because
> > I'm
> > > trying to understand the behavior of consumers if you're doing a
> rolling
> > > restart.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Pradeep
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to