Mailing-List: contact jira-help@kafka.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jira@kafka.apache.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 20:52:00 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Apurva Mehta (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: jira@kafka.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.13081592.1498084892000.95228.1498251120047@Atlassian.JIRA>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.13081592.1498084892000@Atlassian.JIRA>
References: <JIRA.13081592.1498084892000@Atlassian.JIRA> <JIRA.13081592.1498084892793@jira-lw-us.apache.org>
Subject: [jira] [Assigned] (KAFKA-5494) Idempotent producer should not
 require max.in.flight.requests.per.connection=1 and acks=all
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
archived-at: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 20:52:05 -0000


     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-5494?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Apurva Mehta reassigned KAFKA-5494:
-----------------------------------

    Assignee: Apurva Mehta

> Idempotent producer should not require max.in.flight.requests.per.connection=1 and acks=all
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: KAFKA-5494
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-5494
>             Project: Kafka
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>    Affects Versions: 0.11.0.0
>            Reporter: Apurva Mehta
>            Assignee: Apurva Mehta
>              Labels: exactly-once
>
> Currently, the idempotent producer (and hence transactional producer) requires max.in.flight.requests.per.connection=1.
> This was due to simplifying the implementation on the client and server. With some additional work, we can satisfy the idempotent guarantees even with any number of in flight requests. The changes on the client be summarized as follows:
>  
> # We increment sequence numbers when batches are drained.
> # If for some reason, a batch fails with a retriable error, we know that all future batches would fail with an out of order sequence exception. 
> # As such, the client should treat some OutOfOrderSequence errors as retriable. In particular, we should maintain the 'last acked sequnece'. If the batch succeeding the last ack'd sequence has an OutOfOrderSequence, that is a fatal error. If a future batch fails with OutOfOrderSequence they should be reenqeued.
> # With the changes above, the the producer queues should become priority queues ordered by the sequence numbers. 
> # The partition is not ready unless the front of the queue has the next expected sequence.
> With the changes above, we would get the benefits of multiple inflights in normal cases. When there are failures, we automatically constrain to a single inflight until we get back in sequence. 
> With multiple inflights, we now have the possibility of getting duplicates for batches other than the last appended batch. In order to return the record metadata (including offset) of the duplicates inside the log, we would require a log scan at the tail to get the metadata at the tail. This can be optimized by caching the metadata for the last 'n' batches. For instance, if the default max.inflight is 5, we could cache the record metadata of the last 5 batches, and fall back to a scan if the duplicate is not within those 5. 
> * *
> The reason to have acks=all is to protect against OutOfOrderSequence exceptions in the case where the leader fails before replication happens. In that case, the next batch sent by the producer would get an OutOfOrderSequence because the new leader would not have the last message. 
> This may be OK: for applications which really care about avoiding duplicates, they have to handle fatal errors of this sort anyway. In particular, the recommendation is to close the producer in the callback on a fatal error and then check the tail of the log for the last committed message, and then start sending from there. 
> By making acks=all, this application logic would just be exercised more frequently.


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)