kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From radai <radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-107: Add purgeDataBefore() API in AdminClient
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2017 16:04:45 GMT
in summary - i'm not opposed to the idea of a per-topic clean up config
that tracks some set of consumer groups' offsets (which would probably work
for 80% of use cases), but i definitely see a need to expose a simple API
for the more advanced/obscure/custom use cases (the other 20%).

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 7:54 AM, radai <radai.rosenblatt@gmail.com> wrote:

> a major motivation for this KIP is cost savings.
>
> lots of internal systems at LI use kafka as an intermediate pipe, and set
> the topic retention period to a "safe enough" amount of time to be able to
> recover from crashes/downtime and catch up to "now". this results in a few
> days' worth of retention typically.
>
> however, under normal operating conditions the consumers are mostly
> caught-up and so early clean-up enables a big cost savings in storage.
>
> as for my points:
>
> 1. when discussing implementation options for automatic clean-up we
> realized that cleaning up by keeping track of offsets stored in kafka
> requires some per-topic config - you need to specify which groups to track.
> this becomes a problem because:
>     1.1 - relatively complicated code, to be written in the broker.
>     1.2 - configuration needs to be maintained up to date by topic
> "owners" - of which we have thousands. failure to do so would decrease the
> cost benefit.
>     1.3 - some applications have a "reconsume" / "reinit" / "bootstrap"
> workflow where they will reset their offsets to an earlier value than the
> one stored. this means that a stored offset of X does not always mean you
> can clean up to X-1. think of it as video encoding -some apps have "key
> frames" they may seek back to which are before their current offset.
>     1.4 - there are multiple possible strategies - you could clean up
> aggressively, retain some "time distance" from latest, some "offset
> distance", etc. this we think would have made it very hard to agree on a
> single "correct" implementation that everyone would be happy with. it would
> be better to include the raw functionality in the API and leave the
> "brains" to an external monitoring system where people could custom-taylor
> their logic
>
> 2. ad-hoc consumer groups: its common practice for devs to spin up console
> consumers and connect to a topic as a debug aid. SREs may also do this.
> there are also various other eco-system applications that may consumer from
> topics (unknown to topic owners as those are infra monitoring tools).
> obviously such consumer-groups' offsets should be ignored for purposes of
> clean-up, but coming up with a bullet-proof way to do this is non-trivial
> and again ties with implementation complexity and inflexibility of a "one
> size fits all" solution in 1.4 above.
>
> 3. forceful clean-up: we have workflows that use kafka to move gigantic
> blobs from offline hadoop processing flows into systems. the data being
> "loaded" into such an online system can be several GBs in side and take a
> long time to consume (they are sliced into many small msgs). sometimes the
> sender wants to abort and start a new blob before the current load process
> has completed - meaning the consumer's offsets are not yet caught up.
>
> 4. offsets outside of kafka: yes, you could force applications to store
> their offsets twice, but thats inefficient. its better to expose a raw,
> simple API and let such applications manage their own clean-up logic (this
> again ties into 1.4 and no "one size fits all" solution)
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Dong Lin <lindong28@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava <ewen@confluent.io
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Dong Lin <lindong28@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hey Ewen,
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for the review. As Radai explained, it would be complex in
>> terms
>> > of
>> > > user configuration if we were to use committed offset to decide data
>> > > deletion. We need a way to specify which groups need to consume data
>> of
>> > > this partition. The broker will also need to consume the entire
>> offsets
>> > > topic in that approach which has some overhead. I don't think it is
>> that
>> > > hard to implement. But it will likely take more time to discuss that
>> > > approach due to the new config and the server side overhead.
>> > >
>> > > We choose to put this API in AdminClient because the API is more like
>> an
>> > > administrative operation (such as listGroups, deleteTopics) than a
>> > consumer
>> > > operation. It is not necessarily called by consumer only. For
>> example, we
>> > > can implement the "delete data before committed offset" approach by
>> > running
>> > > an external service which calls purgeDataBefore() API based on
>> committed
>> > > offset of consumer groups.
>> > >
>> > > I am not aware that AdminClient is not a public API. Suppose it is not
>> > > public now, I assume we plan to make it public in the future as part
>> of
>> > > KIP-4. Are we not making it public because its interface is not
>> stable?
>> > If
>> > > so, can we just tag this new API as not stable in the code?
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > The AdminClient planned for KIP-4 is a new Java-based implementation.
>> It's
>> > definitely confusing that both will be (could be?) named AdminClient,
>> but
>> > we've kept the existing Scala AdminClient out of the public API and have
>> > not required KIPs for changes to it.
>> >
>> > That said, I agree that if this type of API makes it into Kafka, having
>> a
>> > (new, Java-based) AdminClient method would definitely be a good idea. An
>> > alternative path might be to have a Consumer-based implementation since
>> > that seems like a very intuitive, natural way to use the protocol. I
>> think
>> > optimizing for the expected use case would be a good idea.
>> >
>> > -Ewen
>> >
>> > Are you saying that the Scala AdminClient is not a public API and we
>> discourage addition of any new feature to this class?
>>
>> I still prefer to add it to AdminClient (Java version in the future and
>> Scala version in the short team) because I feel it belongs to admin
>> operation instead of KafkaConsumer interface. For example, if in the
>> future
>> we implement the "delete data before committed offset" strategy in an
>> external service, I feel it is a bit awkward if the service has to
>> instantiate a KafkaConsumer and call KafkaConsumer.purgeDataBefore(...)
>> to
>> purge data. In other words, our expected use-case doesn't necessarily bind
>> this API with consumer.
>>
>> I am not strong on this issue. Let's see what other committers/developers
>> think about this.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Dong
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava <
>> ewen@confluent.io
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Dong,
>> > > >
>> > > > Looks like that's an internal link,
>> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-107%
>> > > > 3A+Add+purgeDataBefore%28%29+API+in+AdminClient
>> > > > is the right one.
>> > > >
>> > > > I have a question about one of the rejected alternatives:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Using committed offset instead of an extra API to trigger data
>> purge
>> > > > operation.
>> > > >
>> > > > The KIP says this would be more complicated to implement. Why is
>> that?
>> > I
>> > > > think brokers would have to consume the entire offsets topic, but
>> the
>> > > data
>> > > > stored in memory doesn't seem to change and applying this when
>> updated
>> > > > offsets are seen seems basically the same. It might also be
>> possible to
>> > > > make it work even with multiple consumer groups if that was desired
>> > > > (although that'd require tracking more data in memory) as a
>> > > generalization
>> > > > without requiring coordination between the consumer groups. Given
>> the
>> > > > motivation, I'm assuming this was considered unnecessary since this
>> > > > specifically targets intermediate stream processing topics.
>> > > >
>> > > > Another question is why expose this via AdminClient (which isn't
>> public
>> > > API
>> > > > afaik)? Why not, for example, expose it on the Consumer, which is
>> > > > presumably where you'd want access to it since the functionality
>> > depends
>> > > on
>> > > > the consumer actually having consumed the data?
>> > > >
>> > > > -Ewen
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Dong Lin <lindong28@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi all,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We created KIP-107 to propose addition of purgeDataBefore() API
in
>> > > > > AdminClient.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Please find the KIP wiki in the link https://iwww.corp.linkedin.
>> > > > > com/wiki/cf/display/ENGS/Kafka+purgeDataBefore%28%29+API+
>> > > > design+proposal.
>> > > > > We
>> > > > > would love to hear your comments and suggestions.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > Dong
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

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