kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: producer rewrite
Date Thu, 23 Jan 2014 20:56:44 GMT
Cool, I've uploaded a patch and rb here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1227

-Jay


On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Joe Stein <joe.stein@stealth.ly> wrote:

> awesome! +1 for checking this in as is as you suggest
>
> /*******************************************
>  Joe Stein
>  Founder, Principal Consultant
>  Big Data Open Source Security LLC
>  http://www.stealth.ly
>  Twitter: @allthingshadoop <http://www.twitter.com/allthingshadoop>
> ********************************************/
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Jun Rao <junrao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This approach sounds reasonable to me. Since the new code will be not be
> > used in the current kafka jar, we can still release 0.8.1 off trunk when
> > it's ready.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jun
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Jay Kreps <jay.kreps@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> > > I have been working on a rewrite of the producer as described in the
> wiki
> > > below and discussed in a few previous threads:
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Client+Rewrite
> > >
> > > My code is still has some bugs and is a bit rough in parts, but it
> > > functions in the basic cases. I did some basic performance tests over
> > > localhost, and the new approach has paid off quite significantly--for
> > small
> > > (10 byte) messages a single thread on my laptop can send over 1m
> > > messages/second, and with larger messages easily maxes out the server.
> > >
> > > The difference between "sync" and "async" largely producer
> > disappears--all
> > > requests immediately return a future response which can be used to get
> > the
> > > behavior of either sync or async usage and we batch whenever the
> producer
> > > is under load using a "group commit"-like approach. You can encourage
> > > additional batching by incurring a small amount of latency (as before).
> > >
> > > Let's talk about how to integrate this code.
> > >
> > > This is a from-scratch rewrite of the producer code. As such it is a
> > pretty
> > > major change. So far I have mostly been working on my own. I'd like to
> > > start getting feedback before I get too far along--no point in my
> > polishing
> > > things that are going to be significantly revised in review, after all.
> > >
> > > As such here is what I would propose:
> > >
> > > 1. I'll put up a preliminary patch. Since this code is a completely
> > > standalone module it will not destabilize the existing server or
> existing
> > > producer (in fact there is no change to those). I will avoid including
> > > build support in this patch until we get the gradle stuff worked out so
> > as
> > > to not break that patch (hopefully that moves along). Let's take this
> > patch
> > > "as is" but with no expectation that the code is complete or that
> checkin
> > > implies everyone agrees with every design decision. I will follow-up
> with
> > > subsequent patches as we do reviews and discussions.
> > >
> > > 2. I'll send out a few higher-level topics for discussion threads.
> Let's
> > > get to consensus on these. I think micro-reviewing minor correctness
> > issues
> > > won't be productive until we make higher level decisions. The topics.
> I'd
> > > like to discuss include
> > > a. The producer code:
> > >      - The public API
> > >      - The configurations: their names, and the general knobs we are
> > >      - Client message serialization
> > >      - The instrumentation to have
> > >      - The blocking and batching behavior
> > > b. The common code and few other cross-cutting policy things
> > >      - The approach to protocol definition and request serialization
> > >      - The config definition helper code
> > >      - The metrics package
> > >      - The project layout
> > >      - The java coding style and the use of java
> > >      - The approach to logging
> > >
> > > This is somewhat backwards, but I think it will be easier to handle
> > changes
> > > that fall out of these discussions against an existing code base that
> is
> > > checked in otherwise each revision will be a brand new very large
> patch.
> > >
> > > If no objections I will toss up this code and kick off some of these
> > > discussions.
> > >
> > > -Jay
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message