So no matter in what sequence you shutdown brokers it is only 1 that causes
the major problem? That would indeed be a bit weird. have you checked
offsets of your consumer - right after offsets jump back - does it start
from the topic start or does it go back to some random position? Have you
checked if all offsets are actually being committed by consumers?

fre 6 okt. 2017 kl. 20:59 skrev Dmitriy Vsekhvalnov <dvsekhval...@gmail.com
>:

> Yeah, probably we can dig around.
>
> One more observation, the most lag/re-consumption trouble happening when we
> kill broker with lowest id (e.g. 100 from [100,101,102]).
> When crashing other brokers - there is nothing special happening, lag
> growing little bit but nothing crazy (e.g. thousands, not millions).
>
> Is it sounds suspicious?
>
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Stas Chizhov <schiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ted: when choosing earliest/latest you are saying: if it happens that
> there
> > is no "valid" offset committed for a consumer (for whatever reason:
> > bug/misconfiguration/no luck) it will be ok to start from the beginning
> or
> > end of the topic. So if you are not ok with that you should choose none.
> >
> > Dmitriy: Ok. Then it is spring-kafka that maintains this offset per
> > partition state for you. it might also has that problem of leaving stale
> > offsets lying around, After quickly looking through
> > https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-kafka/blob/
> > 1945f29d5518e3c4a9950ba82135420dfb61e808/spring-kafka/src/
> > main/java/org/springframework/kafka/listener/
> > KafkaMessageListenerContainer.java
> > it looks possible since offsets map is not cleared upon partition
> > revocation, but that is just a hypothesis. I have no experience with
> > spring-kafka. However since you say you consumers were always active I
> find
> > this theory worth investigating.
> >
> >
> > 2017-10-06 18:20 GMT+02:00 Vincent Dautremont <
> > vincent.dautrem...@olamobile.com.invalid>:
> >
> > > is there a way to read messages on a topic partition from a specific
> node
> > > we that we choose (and not by the topic partition leader) ?
> > > I would like to read myself that each of the __consumer_offsets
> partition
> > > replicas have the same consumer group offset written in it in it.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Dmitriy Vsekhvalnov <
> > > dvsekhval...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Stas:
> > > >
> > > > we rely on spring-kafka, it  commits offsets "manually" for us after
> > > event
> > > > handler completed. So it's kind of automatic once there is constant
> > > stream
> > > > of events (no idle time, which is true for us). Though it's not what
> > pure
> > > > kafka-client calls "automatic" (flush commits at fixed intervals).
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Stas Chizhov <schiz...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You don't have autocmmit enables that means you commit offsets
> > > yourself -
> > > > > correct? If you store them per partition somewhere and fail to
> clean
> > it
> > > > up
> > > > > upon rebalance next time the consumer gets this partition assigned
> > > during
> > > > > next rebalance it can commit old stale offset- can this be the
> case?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > fre 6 okt. 2017 kl. 17:59 skrev Dmitriy Vsekhvalnov <
> > > > > dvsekhval...@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Reprocessing same events again - is fine for us (idempotent).
> While
> > > > > loosing
> > > > > > data is more critical.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What are reasons of such behaviour? Consumers are never idle,
> > always
> > > > > > commiting, probably something wrong with broker setup then?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stas:
> > > > > > > bq.  using anything but none is not really an option
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you have time, can you explain a bit more ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Stas Chizhov <
> schiz...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you set auto.offset.reset to none next time it happens you
> > > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > much better position to find out what happens. Also in
> general
> > > with
> > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > semantics of offset reset policy IMO using anything but none
> is
> > > not
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > an option unless it is ok for consumer to loose some data
> > > (latest)
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > reprocess it second time (earliest).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > fre 6 okt. 2017 kl. 17:44 skrev Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Should Kafka log warning if log.retention.hours is lower
> than
> > > > > number
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > hours specified by offsets.retention.minutes ?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Manikumar <
> > > > > manikumar.re...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > normally, log.retention.hours (168hrs)  should be higher
> > than
> > > > > > > > > > offsets.retention.minutes (336 hrs)?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Dmitriy Vsekhvalnov <
> > > > > > > > > > dvsekhval...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ted,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Broker: v0.11.0.0
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Consumer:
> > > > > > > > > > > kafka-clients v0.11.0.0
> > > > > > > > > > > auto.offset.reset = earliest
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Ted Yu <
> > > yuzhih...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What's the value for auto.offset.reset  ?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Which release are you using ?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Dmitriy Vsekhvalnov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > dvsekhval...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we several time faced situation where
> consumer-group
> > > > > started
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > re-consume
> > > > > > > > > > > > > old events from beginning. Here is scenario:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. x3 broker kafka cluster on top of x3 node
> > zookeeper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. RF=3 for all topics
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. log.retention.hours=168 and
> > > > > > offsets.retention.minutes=20160
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. running sustainable load (pushing events)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. doing disaster testing by randomly shutting
> down 1
> > > of
> > > > 3
> > > > > > > broker
> > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (then provision new broker back)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Several times after bouncing broker we faced
> > situation
> > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > consumer
> > > > > > > > > > > > group
> > > > > > > > > > > > > started to re-consume old events.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > consumer group:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. enable.auto.commit = false
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. tried graceful group shutdown, kill -9 and
> > > terminating
> > > > > AWS
> > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. never experienced re-consumption for given
> cases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What can cause that old events re-consumption? Is
> it
> > > > > related
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > bouncing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one of brokers? What to search in a logs? Any
> broker
> > > > > settings
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > try?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
> to
> > > which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> > > material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
> > > taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
> > > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
> received
> > > this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from
> any
> > > computer.
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to