kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] KIP-91 Provide Intuitive User Timeouts in The Producer
Date Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:31:18 GMT
bq. larger than default (linger.ms + request.timeout.ms + retry.backoff.ms)

I was not referring to the sum of default values for the above parameters.
I was referring to the sum of user configured values for these parameters
(since we don't know whether that sum is higher than 120 seconds or not) .

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Sumant Tambe <sutambe@gmail.com> wrote:

> @Jun, Until we make idempotent producer the default (kip-185), this kip is
> sensitive to retries. I.e., we expire batches either delivery.timeout.ms
> passes or all retries are exhausted, whichever comes first. In cases where
> retries exhaust first due to linger.ms + retries * (request.timeout.ms +
> retry.backoff.ms) being much smaller than delivery.timeout.ms, multiple
> failed requests (due to pipelining) will cause batches to expire
> out-of-order. Right?
>
> @Ted, The idea is to have the default value of delivery.timeout.ms=120
> sec,
> which is much larger than default (linger.ms + request.timeout.ms +
> retry.backoff.ms). If a user configures them incorrectly, report a
> ConfigException.
>
>
> On 11 September 2017 at 09:11, Jun Rao <jun@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Sumant,
> >
> > Thanks for the KIP. +1.
> >
> > Just a minor clarification. The KIP says "Batches expire in order
> > when max.in.flight.request.per.connection==1". Is that true? It seems
> that
> > even with max.in.flight.request.per.connection > 1, batches should still
> > expire in order.
> >
> > Jun
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for the KIP.
> > >
> > > For delivery.timeout.ms , since it should be >= linger.ms +
> > > request.timeout.ms + retry.backoff.ms , it seems the default value
> > should
> > > be max(120 seconds, linger.ms + request.timeout.ms + retry.backoff.ms
> ).
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the KIP. +1 (binding) from me. Just a minor suggestion, I
> > > would
> > > > mention the following under "Public Interfaces":
> > > >
> > > > Default value of delivery.timeout.ms = 120 seconds
> > > > Default value of retries will be changed to MAX_INT
> > > > request.timeout.ms – current meaning, but messages are not expired
> > after
> > > > this time. I.e., request.timeout.ms is no longer relevant for batch
> > > > expiry.
> > > >
> > > > The compatibility impact of such changes can remain in the
> > compatibility
> > > > section. Also, I agree about keeping your "reordering" text although
> it
> > > > seems like the wiki wasn't updated to match what you posted in the
> > > > discussion thread.
> > > >
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Sumant Tambe <sutambe@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to open the vote for KIP-91:
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-91+
> > > > > Provide+Intuitive+User+Timeouts+in+The+Producer
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you all for your input on the kip so far.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Sumant
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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