Hi Bill,

Thanks for the reply.
We had a look at the patch for KAFKA-7144 and will try it out on Kafka 1.1.1
Currently a full upstep to 2.0.x is not yet an option.

In the mean time I have some unit-tests that reproduce this problem, so the
backport to v1.1.1 can easily be verified.

Greets,
Bart

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:27 AM Bill Bejeck <b...@confluent.io> wrote:

> Hi Bart,
>
> This is a known issue discovered in version 1.1 -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7144
>
> This issue has been fixed in Kafka Streams 2.0, any chance you can upgrade
> to 2.0?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:46 PM Bart Vercammen <b...@cloutrix.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks John,
> >
> > I'll see what I can do regarding the logs ...
> > As a side not, our Kafka cluster is running version v1.1.1 in v0.10.2.1
> log
> > format configuration (due to another issue: KAFKA-6000)
> > But, as said, I'll try to come up with some detailed logs, or a scenario
> to
> > reproduce this.
> >
> > Greets,
> > Bart
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 8:37 PM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Bart,
> > >
> > > I suspected it might not be feasible to just dump your production logs
> > onto
> > > the internet.
> > >
> > > A repro would be even better, but I bet it wouldn't show up when you
> try
> > > and reproduce it. Good luck!
> > >
> > > If the repro doesn't turn out, maybe you could just extract the
> > assignment
> > > lines from your logs?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -John
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 1:24 PM Bart Vercammen <b...@cloutrix.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi John,
> > > >
> > > > Zipping up some logs from our running Kafka cluster is going to be a
> > bit
> > > > difficult.
> > > > What I can do is try to reproduce this off-line and capture the logs
> > from
> > > > there.
> > > >
> > > > We also had a look in the PartitionAssignor source code (for 1.1.1)
> and
> > > > indeed this behaviour is a bit weird
> > > > as from the source code I'd expect equally divided partitions.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, hopefully I'll be able to reproduce this issue with some
> simple
> > > > unit-test like code.
> > > > I'll post the results when I have more info.
> > > >
> > > > Greets,
> > > > Bart
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:36 PM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Bart,
> > > > >
> > > > > This sounds a bit surprising. Is there any chance you can zip up
> some
> > > > logs
> > > > > so we can see the assignment protocol on the nodes?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > -John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 4:32 AM Bart Vercammen <b...@cloutrix.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I recently moved some KafkaStreams applications from v0.10.2.1 to
> > > > v1.1.1
> > > > > > and now I notice a weird behaviour in the partition assignment.
> > > > > > When starting 4 instances of my Kafka Streams application (on
> > > v1.1.1) I
> > > > > see
> > > > > > that 17 of the 20 partitions (of a source topic) are assigned to
> 1
> > > > > instance
> > > > > > of the application while the other 3 instances only get 1
> partition
> > > > > > assigned. (previously (on v0.10.2.1) the all got 5 partitions.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this expected behaviour, as I read that quite some
> improvements
> > > were
> > > > > > done in the partition assignment strategy for Kafka Streams
> > > > applications?
> > > > > > If yes, how can I make it so that the partitions are equally
> > devided
> > > > > again
> > > > > > across all running applications?   It's a bit weird in my opinion
> > as
> > > > this
> > > > > > makes scaling the application very hard.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, when initially starting with 1 instance of the application,
> > and
> > > > > > gradually scaling up, the new instances only get 1 partition
> > assigned
> > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All my Streams applications use default configuration (more or
> > less),
> > > > > > running 1 stream-thread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any suggestions / enlightenments on this?
> > > > > > Greets,
> > > > > > Bart
> > > > > >
>
>

Reply via email to