Mailing-List: contact kafka-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: kafka-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of junrao@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOeJiJiNBJFDtZ-chicx3vxogysCb0Jgj9YbwW__1KV_EuqOGw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAAg6m_bpa=8nO56ES2Qg5tZ4Ck7zdKqm4zJQ2gp_-YVu=gVvaA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFbh0Q1wuqcA833xn_=cVAkaOtFKG5kd5tNtTVS7zCQfVvpGRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOeJiJi7Kog5zCjJnVHb_Fr0A4aK4Gv7eJ4bSv=R9gFBSXVqQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFbh0Q2q=DZiRbLow0PW098k-zLP9JbSm3hy9Zz+ZB3DbXawVA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOeJiJiNBJFDtZ-chicx3vxogysCb0Jgj9YbwW__1KV_EuqOGw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:33:48 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAFbh0Q1k0rmRmqBdHd4YdXynX6=Rvm89SbdL_nVGbw6kBUEZTw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: kafka-49
From: Jun Rao <junrao@gmail.com>
To: kafka-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0ce0d8ac46911604a89bf1aa

--000e0ce0d8ac46911604a89bf1aa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

If we have ACK, the producer can catch any exception and resend.

Jun

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kreps@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, that makes sense. How are we going to handle production through a vip
> in that case?
>
> -Jay
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Jun Rao <junrao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Without replication, we can make ACK optional. With replication, a
> producer
> > can only write to the leader replica. Without ACK, there is no way that
> the
> > broker can inform the producer that it's trying to write to the wrong
> > broker.
> >
> > Jun
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kreps@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It might be nice to consider making the ack optional and part of the
> > > request. The current behavior is good for many uses, the request is
> > > instantaneously written to the socket buffer but sent asynchronously. I
> > > think that is a valuable use case where you care about throughput. I
> > guess
> > > the question is whether the asynchronous api already covers that well
> > > enough
> > > and how much complexity exposing that causes.
> > >
> > > -Jay
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Jun Rao <junrao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jeff,
> > > >
> > > > I was thinking of making the ACK mandatory for the producer. The ACK
> > can
> > > be
> > > > sent when the message either hits 1 replicas or multiple replicas,
> > > > depending
> > > > on the setting.
> > > >
> > > > Having the ACK include the starting offset of the message seems
> > > reasonable.
> > > > It will be a bit complicated for multisend since multiple offsets
> have
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > returned. What do you need the offset for?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Jun
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Jeffrey Damick <
> > > jeffreydamick@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is there any current thought around KAFKA-49, for acknowledgement
> of
> > > > > producers?
> > > > > Will this be optional, a new message type(s)?
> > > > > Will the ack be synchronous or asynchronous or depending on request
> > > type?
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be fantastic if the ack contained the starting offset of
> the
> > > > > message published, and not just the ending.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is quickly becoming an issue for us, so we may be able to
> > provide
> > > > some
> > > > > help in this area..
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks
> > > > > -jeff
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--000e0ce0d8ac46911604a89bf1aa--