kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthias J. Sax" <matth...@confluent.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-228 Negative record timestamp support
Date Wed, 03 Jan 2018 04:04:56 GMT
I was thinking about a broker/topic config.

However, I am not sure if we only need to worry about data written in
the future (this would only be true, if there would be no records with
-1 timestamp already). Assume that we you an existing topic that
contains data with -1 = UNKNOWN records -- for this case, we would give
those timestamps a new semantics if we suddenly allow negative
timestamps. (Assuming that we don't allow -1 as a gap in the timeline
what I would rather not do.)

Also note, that it's not really client specific IMHO, as one could
implement their own clients. There are many third party clients and we
don't know if they check for negative timestamps (applications could
even assign their own special meaning to negative timestamps as those
are unused atm) -- furthermore, all older client not embedding a
timestamp default to -1 on the broker side...

> The implementation could easily be made to map
> those values into a range that is less likely to be utilized (e.g. use the
> values near Long.MIN_VALUE and have the consumer convert back as needed).
> The sentinel for NO_TIMESTAMP could be changed between versions as long as
> it is handled consistently between client versions.

This opens Pandora's box IMHO.

> Introducing the new
> config seems like it has significant compatibility concerns that need to be
> sorted out. 

I cannot follow here -- from my point of view, it relaxes compatibility
concerns. If we only allow new topic to enable negative timestamps, old
behavior and new behavior are not mixed. IMHO, mixing both would be a
real issue. Thus, for new topics we can change "unknown" from -1 to
Long.MIN_VALUE and don't mix two different approaches within a single topic.

I see your point that we do have too many configs -- we could also make
it a new value for existing `message.timestamp.type`.


On 1/2/18 7:48 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava wrote:
> For `allow.negative.timestamps`, do you mean this as a broker config? I'm
> not entirely clear on what the proposal would entail.
> I think taking into account whether we're talking about compatibility with
> existing data in Kafka vs enabling use of negative timestamps is important
> here. If they're effectively not supported today (though admittedly this is
> really client-specific), then we need only concern ourselves with data that
> hasn't been produced into Kafka yet. In that case, we can always handle
> sentinel values in special ways if we really want to. For example, the Java
> producer does not accept any values < 0 and the API supports passing null
> rather than the sentinels. The implementation could easily be made to map
> those values into a range that is less likely to be utilized (e.g. use the
> values near Long.MIN_VALUE and have the consumer convert back as needed).
> The sentinel for NO_TIMESTAMP could be changed between versions as long as
> it is handled consistently between client versions.
> IMO we already have way too many configs, so we should think about where
> the impact is and if a not ideal, but also not significant compromise can
> be made and avoid most of the additional complexity. Introducing the new
> config seems like it has significant compatibility concerns that need to be
> sorted out. In contrast, I suspect the use cases we need to support that
> have come up so far can handle 1 or 2 special cases and the necessary
> munging could be handled safely by interceptors such that it is trivial to
> make sure all your apps do the right thing. I appreciate the pain of a ton
> of mailing list questions about an issue like this, but given the
> likelihood of encountering that particular value, I just find it unlikely
> it would be that common and I think it's a reasonable tradeoff to tell a
> user they might need to handle that one special case.
> -Ewen
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Matthias J. Sax <matthias@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>> I agree that changing message format or using a flag bit might not be
>> worth it.
>> However, just keeping -1 as "unknown" leaving a time gap give me a lot
>> of headache, too. Your arguments about "not an issue in practice" kinda
>> make sense to me, but I see the number of question on the mailing list
>> already if we really follow this path... It will confuse users that
>> don't pay attention and "loose" data if Kafka Streams drops records with
>> timestamp -1 but processes other records with negative timestamps.
>> Thus, I was wondering if a new topic config (maybe
>> `allow.negative.timestamps` with default `false`) that allows for enable
>> negative timestamps would be the better solution? With this new config,
>> we would not have any sentinel value for "unknown" and all timestamps
>> would be valid. Old producers, can't write to those topics if they are
>> configured with CREATE_TIME though; APPEND_TIME would still work for
>> older producers but with APPEND_TIME no negative timestamps are possible
>> in the first place, so this config would not have any impact anyway.
>> Kafka Streams could check the topic config and only drop negative
>> timestamps is they are not enabled. Or course, existing topic should not
>> enable negative timestamps if there are records with -1 in them already
>> -- otherwise, semantics break down -- but this would be a config error
>> we cannot prevent. However, I would expect that mostly newly created
>> topics would enable this config anyway.
>> -Matthias
>> On 12/18/17 10:47 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava wrote:
>>> I think the trivial change of just recognizing using -1 was a mistake
>> for a
>>> sentinel value and special casing it while allowing other negative values
>>> through is the most practical, reasonable change.
>>> Realistically, the scope of impact for that -1 is pretty tiny, as has
>> been
>>> pointed out. A single millisecond gap in available timestamps in 1969.
>> For
>>> producers that really want to be careful (as the NYT data might want to
>>> be), having the producer layer adjust accordingly is unlikely to be an
>>> issue (you can't assume these timestamps are unique anyway, so they
>> cannot
>>> reasonably used for ordering; adjusting by 1ms is a practical tradeoff).
>>> Other approaches where we modify the semantics of the timestamp from the
>>> two existing modes require eating up valuable flags in the message
>> format,
>>> or ramping the message format version, all of which make things
>>> significantly messier. Hell, timezones, leap seconds, and ms granularity
>>> probably make that 1ms window pretty much moot for any practical
>>> applications, and for the extremely rare case that an application might
>>> care, they are probably willing to pay the cost of a secondary index if
>>> they needed to store timestamp values in the payload rather than in the
>>> metadata.
>>> Given that we have the current system in place, I suspect that any
>>> translation to using Long.MIN_VALUE as the sentinel is probably just more
>>> confusing to users, adds more implementation overhead to client
>> libraries,
>>> and is more likely to introduce bugs.
>>> Warts like these always feel wrong when approached from pure design
>>> principles, but the fact is that the constraints are already there. To
>> me,
>>> none of the proposals to move to an encoding we'd prefer seem to add
>> enough
>>> value to outweigh the migration, compatibility, and implementation costs.
>>> @Dong -- your point about special timestamp values is a very good one.
>> The
>>> issue may extend to other cases in the protocol where we use timestamps.
>> Is
>>> this the scope we need to worry about (2 values instead of just 1) or are
>>> there others? This also might be something we want to look out for in the
>>> future -- using special values relative to <SignedIntType>.MIN_VALUE
>>> instead of relative to 0.
>>> -Ewen
>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Dong Lin <lindong28@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hey Konstantin,
>>>> Thanks for updating the KIP.
>>>> If we were to support negative timestamp in the message, we probably
>> also
>>>> want to support negative timestamp in ListOffsetRequest. Currently in
>>>> ListOffsetRequest, timestamp value -2 is used to indicate earliest
>>>> timestamp and timestamp value -1 is used to indicate latest timestamp.
>> It
>>>> seems that we should make changes accordingly so that -1 and -2 can be
>>>> supported as valid timestamp in ListOffsetRequest. What do you think?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Dong
>>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Konstantin Chukhlomin <
>>>> chuhlomin@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> I've updated KIP with few more details:
>>>>> Added (proposed) Changes in binary message format <
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-228+
>>>>> Negative+record+timestamp+support#KIP-228Negativerecordtimes
>>>>> tampsupport-Changesinbinarymessageformat>
>>>>> Added Changes from producer perspective <https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
>>>>> luence/display/KAFKA/KIP-228+Negative+record+timestamp+supp
>>>>> ort#KIP-228Negativerecordtimestampsupport-
>> Changesfromproducerperspective
>>>>> Added Changes from consumer perspective <https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
>>>>> luence/display/KAFKA/KIP-228+Negative+record+timestamp+supp
>>>>> ort#KIP-228Negativerecordtimestampsupport-
>> Changesfromconsumerperspective
>>>>> Let me know if it makes sense to you.
>>>>> -Konstantin
>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Konstantin Chukhlomin <
>> chuhlomin@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>>>> Indeed for consumers it will be not obvious what −1 means: actual
>>>>> timestamp
>>>>>> or no timestamp. Nevertheless, it's just −1 millisecond, so I thought
>>>> it
>>>>> will be
>>>>>> not a big deal to leave it (not clean, but acceptable).
>>>>>> I agree that it will much cleaner to have a different type of topics
>>>>> that support
>>>>>> negative timestamp and/or threat Long.MIN_VALUE as a no-timestamp.
>>>>>> I'll update KIP to make it a proposed solution.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Konstantin
>>>>>>> On Dec 5, 2017, at 7:06 PM, Matthias J. Sax <matthias@confluent.io>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP Konstantin.
>>>>>>> From my understanding, you propose to just remove the negative
>>>> timestamp
>>>>>>> check in KafkaProducer and KafkaStreams. If topics are configured
>> with
>>>>>>> `CreateTime` brokers also write negative timestamps if they are
>>>> embedded
>>>>>>> in the message.
>>>>>>> However, I am not sure about the overlapping semantics for -1
>>>> timestamp.
>>>>>>> My concerns is, that this ambiguity might result in issues. Assume
>>>> that
>>>>>>> there is a topic (configured with `CreateTime`) for which an
old and
>> a
>>>>>>> new producer are writing. The old producer uses old message format
>> and
>>>>>>> does not include any timestamp in the message. The broker will
>>>> "upgrade"
>>>>>>> this message to the new format and set -1. At the same time,
the new
>>>>>>> producer could write a message with valid timestamp -1. A consumer
>>>> could
>>>>>>> not distinguish between both cases...
>>>>>>> Also, there might be other Producer implementations that write
>>>> negative
>>>>>>> timestamps. Thus, those might already exist. For Streams, we
>>>>>>> process those and we should make sure to keep it this way (to
>>>>>>> ambiguity).
>>>>>>> Thus, it might actually make sense to introduce a new timestamp
>>>> to
>>>>>>> express those new semantics. The question is still, how to deal
>>>>>>> older producer clients that want to write to those topics.
>>>>>>> - We could either use `Long.MIN_VALUE` as "unknown" (this would
>> way
>>>>>>> better than -1 as it's not in the middle of the range but at
the very
>>>>>>> end and it will also have well-defined semantics).
>>>>>>> - Or we use a "mixed-mode" where we use broker wall-clock time
>>>>>>> older message formats (ie, append time semantics for older producers)
>>>>>>> - Third, we would even give an error message back to older producers;
>>>>>>> this might change the backward compatibility guarantees Kafka
>> provides
>>>>>>> so far when upgrading brokers. However, this would not affect
>>>>>>> topics, but only newly created ones (and we could disallow changing
>>>> the
>>>>>>> semantics to the new timestamp type to guard against miss
>>>>>>> configuration). Thus, it might be ok.
>>>>>>> For Streams, we could check the topic config and process negative
>>>>>>> timestamps only if the topic is configures with the new timestamp
>>>> type.
>>>>>>> Maybe I am a little bit to paranoid about overloading -1 semantics.
>>>>>>> Curious to get feedback from others.
>>>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>>> On 12/5/17 1:24 PM, Konstantin Chukhlomin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Dong,
>>>>>>>> Currently we are storing historical timestamp in the message.
>>>>>>>> What we are trying to achieve is to make it possible to do
>>>> lookup
>>>>>>>> by timestamp. Ideally I would do `offsetsForTimes` to find
>>>>> published
>>>>>>>> in 1910s (if we are storing articles on the log).
>>>>>>>> So first two suggestions aren't really covering our use-case.
>>>>>>>> We could create a new timestamp type like "HistoricalTimestamp"
>>>>> "MaybeNegativeTimestamp".
>>>>>>>> And the only difference between this one and CreateTime is
that it
>>>>> could be negative.
>>>>>>>> I tend to use CreateTime for this purpose because it's easier
>>>>> understand from
>>>>>>>> user perspective as a timestamp which publisher can set.
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Konstantin
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 5, 2017, at 3:47 PM, Dong Lin <lindong28@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> Hey Konstantin,
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP. I have a few questions below.
>>>>>>>>> Strictly speaking Kafka actually allows you to store
>>>> data.
>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>> user are free to encode arbitrary timestamp field in
their Kafka
>>>>> message.
>>>>>>>>> For example, your Kafka message can currently have Json
or Avro
>>>>> format and
>>>>>>>>> you can put a timestamp field there. Do you think that
>> address
>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> use-case?
>>>>>>>>> Alternatively, KIP-82 introduced Record Header in Kafka
and you can
>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>> define your customized key/value pair in the header.
Do you think
>>>>> this can
>>>>>>>>> address your use-case?
>>>>>>>>> Also, currently there are two types of timestamp according
>>>> KIP-32.
>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>> the type is LogAppendTime then the timestamp value is
the time when
>>>>> broker
>>>>>>>>> receives the message. If the type is CreateTime then
the timestamp
>>>>> value is
>>>>>>>>> determined when producer produces message. With these
>>>>> definitions, the
>>>>>>>>> timestamp should always be positive. We probably need
a new type
>>>> here
>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>>> can not put timestamp in the Record Header or the message
>>>>> Does
>>>>>>>>> this sound reasonable?
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Dong
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Konstantin Chukhlomin
>>>>> chuhlomin@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>> I have created a KIP to support negative timestamp:
>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>>>>>>>>>> 228+Negative+record+timestamp+support <https://cwiki.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>> confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-228+Negative+record+timestamp+
>>>> support>
>>>>>>>>>> Here are proposed changes: https://github.com/apache/
>>>>>>>>>> kafka/compare/trunk...chuhlomin:trunk <https://github.com/apache/
>>>>>>>>>> kafka/compare/trunk...chuhlomin:trunk>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure that not cases are covered, so comments
>>>>> suggestions
>>>>>>>>>> are welcome.
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>> Konstantin

View raw message