You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@kafka.apache.org by Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io> on 2019/09/04 11:03:28 UTC

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams

Hi,

1) What do you mean with "full set of offsets in the topic"? Is this
the sum of all offsets of the changelog partitions of the task?

2) I am not sure whether non-logged stateful tasks should be
effectively treated as stateless tasks during assignment. First we
need to decide whether a non-logged stateful task should preferably be
assigned to the same instance on which it just run in order to
continue to use its state or not.

3) In the example, you define stand-by tasks {S1, S2, ...} but never
use them, because below you use a dedicated row for stand-by tasks.

As a side note to 2) since it is not directly related to this KIP: We
should decide if we want to avoid the possible non-determinism
introduced by non-logged stores or not. That is, if an instance hosts
a task with non-logged stores then we can have two cases after the
next rebalance: a) the task stays on the same instance and continues
to use the same state store as used so far or b) the task is assigned
to another instance and it starts an empty state store. The produced
results for these two cases might differ. To avoid the nondeterminism,
non-logged state stores would need to be wiped out before assignment.
Then the question arises, how the removal of non-logged state stores
before assignment would affect backward-compatibility.

Best,
Bruno

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:40 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> Hi Guozhang,
>
> > My impression from your previous email is that inside the algorithm when
> we
> are "filling" them to instances some deterministic logic would be used to
> avoid the above case, is that correct?
>
> Yes, that was my plan, but I didn't formalize it. There was a requirement
> that the assignment algorithm must not produce a new assignment if the
> current assignment is already balanced, so at the least, any thrashing
> would be restricted to the "balancing" phase while tasks are moving around
> the cluster.
>
> Anyway, I think it would be good to say that we'll "try to" produce stable
> assignments, so I've added a "should" clause to the assignment spec:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-AssignmentAlgorithm
>
> For example, we would sort the stateless tasks and available instances
> before assigning them, so that the stateless task assignment would mostly
> stay stable between assignments, modulo the compute capacity of the
> instances changing a little as active stateful tasks get assigned in more
> balanced ways.
>
> Thanks,
> -John
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:55 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello John,
> >
> > That sounds reasonable. Just double checked the code that with logging
> > disabled the corresponding checkpoint file would not contain any values,
> > just like a stateless task. So I think treating them logically the same is
> > fine.
> >
> > Guozhang
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi again, Guozhang,
> > >
> > > While writing up the section on stateless tasks (
> > >
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statelesstasks
> > > ),
> > > I reconsidered whether stateful, but non-logged, tasks should actually
> > > report a lag of zero, versus not reporting any lag. By the definition of
> > > the "StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates" function, the leader would compute
> > a
> > > lag of zero for these tasks anyway.
> > >
> > > Therefore, I think the same reasoning that I supplied you for stateless
> > > tasks applies, since the member and leader will agree on a lag of zero
> > > anyway, we can avoid adding them to the "Task Lags" map, and save some
> > > bytes in the JoinGroup request. This would be especially beneficial in an
> > > application that uses remote stores for _all_ its state stores, it would
> > > have an extremely lightweight JoinGroup request, with no task lags at
> > all.
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > > -John
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:17 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks, Guozhang.
> > > >
> > > > (Side note: I noticed on another pass over the discussion that I'd
> > missed
> > > > addressing your comment about the potential race condition between
> > state
> > > > cleanup and lag-based assignment. I've added a solution to the
> > proposal:
> > > >
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Racebetweenassignmentandstatecleanup
> > > > )
> > > >
> > > > In the JoinGroup (SubscriptionInfo) metadata, stateless tasks are not
> > > > represented at all. This should save us some bytes in the request
> > > metadata.
> > > > If we treated them like non-logged stateful tasks and reported a lag of
> > > 0,
> > > > the only difference is that the assignor would be able to tell which
> > > > members previously hosted that stateless task.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to make a simplifying assumption that stateless tasks can just
> > > be
> > > > freely reassigned with no regard to stickiness at all, without
> > impacting
> > > > performance. This is almost true. In fact, while assigned a stateless
> > > task,
> > > > a member fetches batches of records from the broker, so if we move the
> > > > stateless task assignment, this buffered input is wasted and just gets
> > > > dropped.
> > > >
> > > > However, we won't be moving the stateless tasks around all the time
> > (just
> > > > during rebalances), and we have the requirement that the assigment
> > > > algorithm must stabilize to guard against perpetually shuffling a
> > > stateless
> > > > task from one node to another. So, my hope is that this small amount of
> > > > inefficiency would not be a performance-dominating factor. In exchange,
> > > we
> > > > gain the opportunity for the assignment algorithm to use the stateless
> > > > tasks as "filler" during unbalanced assignments. For example, if there
> > > is a
> > > > node that is just warming up with several standby tasks, maybe the
> > > > assignment can give more stateless tasks to that node to balance the
> > > > computational load across the cluster.
> > > >
> > > > It's worth noting that such an assignment would still not be considered
> > > > "balanced", so the ultimately balanced final state of the assignment
> > > (after
> > > > task movements) would still have the desired property that each
> > stateful
> > > > and stateless task is evenly spread across the cluster.
> > > >
> > > > Does that seem reasonable?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -John
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:22 AM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hello John,
> > > >>
> > > >> I've made another pass on the wiki page again, overall LGTM. One meta
> > > >> comment about the "stateless" tasks: how do we represent them in the
> > > >> metadata? Are they just treated as stateful tasks with logging
> > disabled,
> > > >> or
> > > >> are specially handled? It is not very clear in the description.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Guozhang
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:43 AM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I have also specifically called out that the assignment must achieve
> > > >> both
> > > >> > "instance" and "task" balance:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Defining%22balance%22
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I've also addressed the problem of state stores with logging
> > disabled:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statewithloggingdisabled
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I believe this addresses all the concerns that have been raised to
> > > date.
> > > >> > Apologies if I've overlooked one of your concerns.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Please give the KIP another read and let me know of any further
> > > >> thoughts!
> > > >> > Hopefully, we can start the voting on this KIP by the end of the
> > week.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > -John
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:16 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > In response to Bruno's concern #2, I've also added that section to
> > > the
> > > >> > > "Rejected Alternatives" section.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Additionally, after reviewing some other assignment papers, I've
> > > >> > developed
> > > >> > > the concern that specifying which "phases" the assignment
> > algorithm
> > > >> > should
> > > >> > > have, or indeed the logic of it at all, might be a mistake that
> > > >> > > over-constrains our ability to write an optimal algorithm.
> > > Therefore,
> > > >> > I've
> > > >> > > also refactored the KIP to just describe the protocol, and specify
> > > the
> > > >> > > requirements for the assignment algorithm, but not its exact
> > > behavior
> > > >> at
> > > >> > > all.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > -John
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:13 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> Hi All,
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Thanks for the discussion. I've been considering the idea of
> > giving
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >> "catching up" tasks a different name/role. I was in favor
> > > initially,
> > > >> but
> > > >> > >> after working though some details, I think it causes some
> > problems,
> > > >> > which
> > > >> > >> I've written up in the "rejected alternatives" part of the KIP:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Addinganewkindoftask(%22moving%22,%22recovering%22,%22learner%22)fortaskmovements
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Please give it a read and let me know what you think.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > >> > >> -John
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:57 PM Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>> I think I agree with you Sophie. My gut feeling is that 1) it
> > > should
> > > >> > not
> > > >> > >>> be
> > > >> > >>> the major concern in assignor's algorithm for standby tasks not
> > > >> > catching
> > > >> > >>> up, but rather be tackled in different modules, and 2) a lot of
> > > >> > >>> optimization can be down at the stream thread itself, like
> > > dedicated
> > > >> > >>> threading and larger batching, or even complicated scheduling
> > > >> > mechanisms
> > > >> > >>> between running, restoring and standby tasks. In anyways, I
> > think
> > > we
> > > >> > can
> > > >> > >>> take this out of the scope of KIP-441 for now.
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> Guozhang
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:48 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> > > we may have other ways to not starving the standby tasks,
> > for
> > > >> > >>> example, by
> > > >> > >>> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or even consider
> > > having
> > > >> > >>> > *higher> priority for standby than active* so that we always
> > try
> > > >> to
> > > >> > >>> caught
> > > >> > >>> > up standby
> > > >> > >>> > > first, then process active
> > > >> > >>> >
> > > >> > >>> > This is an interesting idea, but seems likely to get in the
> > way
> > > of
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > >>> > original idea of this KIP
> > > >> > >>> > -- if we always process standby tasks first, then if we are
> > > >> assigned
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > >>> new
> > > >> > >>> > standby task we
> > > >> > >>> > will have to wait for it to catch up completely before
> > > processing
> > > >> any
> > > >> > >>> > active tasks! That's
> > > >> > >>> > even worse than the situation this KIP is trying to help with,
> > > >> since
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > >>> new
> > > >> > >>> > standby task has to
> > > >> > >>> > restore from 0 (whereas an active task at least can take over
> > > from
> > > >> > >>> wherever
> > > >> > >>> > the standby was).
> > > >> > >>> >
> > > >> > >>> > During restoration -- while there exist any restoring tasks
> > -- I
> > > >> > think
> > > >> > >>> it's
> > > >> > >>> > reasonable to de-prioritize the
> > > >> > >>> > standby tasks and just process restoring and active tasks so
> > > both
> > > >> can
> > > >> > >>> make
> > > >> > >>> > progress. But we should
> > > >> > >>> > let them catch up afterwards somehow -- maybe we can apply
> > some
> > > >> kind
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > >>> > heuristic, like "if we haven't
> > > >> > >>> > processed standbys for X iterations, or Y milliseconds, do so
> > > >> now."
> > > >> > >>> >
> > > >> > >>> > Actually, it might even be beneficial to avoid processing
> > > >> standbys a
> > > >> > >>> record
> > > >> > >>> > or two at a time and instead
> > > >> > >>> > wait for a large enough batch to build up for the RocksDB
> > > >> > bulk-loading
> > > >> > >>> > benefits.
> > > >> > >>> >
> > > >> > >>> > I think the "use dedicated threads for standby" is the more
> > > >> promising
> > > >> > >>> end
> > > >> > >>> > goal, especially since
> > > >> > >>> > if we split restoration into "restoring tasks" then active and
> > > >> > standbys
> > > >> > >>> > share almost nothing. But
> > > >> > >>> > that seems like follow-up work to the current KIP :)
> > > >> > >>> >
> > > >> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:31 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > >> > >>> sophie@confluent.io>
> > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > >> > >>> >
> > > >> > >>> > > Stateful tasks with logging disabled seem to be an
> > interesting
> > > >> edge
> > > >> > >>> case.
> > > >> > >>> > > On the one hand,
> > > >> > >>> > > for balancing purposes they should be considered stateful
> > > since
> > > >> as
> > > >> > >>> > > Guozhang pointed out
> > > >> > >>> > > they are still "heavy" in IO costs. But for "catching up"
> > > >> purposes,
> > > >> > >>> ie
> > > >> > >>> > > when allocating standby
> > > >> > >>> > > tasks that will become active tasks, they should be
> > considered
> > > >> > >>> stateless
> > > >> > >>> > > as there is so
> > > >> > >>> > > meaningful sense of their lag. We should never allocate
> > > standby
> > > >> > >>> tasks for
> > > >> > >>> > > them during the
> > > >> > >>> > > first rebalance, but should ensure they are evenly
> > distributed
> > > >> > across
> > > >> > >>> > > instances. Maybe we
> > > >> > >>> > > should split these into a third category -- after we assign
> > > all
> > > >> > >>> stateful
> > > >> > >>> > > tasks with logging, we
> > > >> > >>> > > then distribute the set of logging-disabled stateful tasks
> > to
> > > >> > improve
> > > >> > >>> > > balance, before lastly
> > > >> > >>> > > distributing stateless tasks?
> > > >> > >>> > >
> > > >> > >>> > > This actually leads into what I was just thinking, which is
> > > >> that we
> > > >> > >>> > really
> > > >> > >>> > > should distinguish the
> > > >> > >>> > > "catch-up" standbys from normal standbys as well as
> > > >> distinguishing
> > > >> > >>> > > actively processing tasks
> > > >> > >>> > > from active tasks that are still in the restore phase. It's
> > > >> > somewhat
> > > >> > >>> > > awkward that today, some
> > > >> > >>> > > active tasks just start processing immediately while others
> > > >> behave
> > > >> > >>> more
> > > >> > >>> > > like standby than active
> > > >> > >>> > > tasks for some time, before switching to real active. They
> > > first
> > > >> > use
> > > >> > >>> the
> > > >> > >>> > > restoreConsumer, then
> > > >> > >>> > > later only the "normal" consumer.
> > > >> > >>> > >
> > > >> > >>> > > However, this restore period is still distinct from normal
> > > >> standbys
> > > >> > >>> in a
> > > >> > >>> > > lot of ways -- the code path
> > > >> > >>> > > for restoring is different than for updating standbys, for
> > > >> example
> > > >> > >>> in how
> > > >> > >>> > > long we block on #poll.
> > > >> > >>> > > So in addition to giving them their own name -- let's go
> > with
> > > >> > >>> restoring
> > > >> > >>> > > task for now -- they really
> > > >> > >>> > > do seem to deserve being their own distinct task. We can
> > > >> optimize
> > > >> > >>> them
> > > >> > >>> > for
> > > >> > >>> > > efficient conversion
> > > >> > >>> > > to active tasks since we know that's what they will be.
> > > >> > >>> > >
> > > >> > >>> > > This resolves some of the awkwardness of dealing with the
> > > >> special
> > > >> > >>> case
> > > >> > >>> > > mentioned above: we
> > > >> > >>> > > find a balanced assignment of stateful and stateless tasks,
> > > and
> > > >> > >>> create
> > > >> > >>> > > restoring tasks as needed.
> > > >> > >>> > > If logging is disabled, no restoring task is created.
> > > >> > >>> > >
> > > >> > >>> > >
> > > >> > >>> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:44 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > >> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > >> > >>> > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> Regarding 3) above: I think for active task they should
> > still
> > > >> be
> > > >> > >>> > >> considered
> > > >> > >>> > >> stateful since the processor would still pay IO cost
> > > accessing
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >>> > store,
> > > >> > >>> > >> but they would not have standby tasks?
> > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > >> > >>> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:49 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > >> bruno@confluent.io>
> > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > >> > >>> > >> > Hi,
> > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > Thank you for the KIP!
> > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > Some questions/comments:
> > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > 1. I am wondering if the "stand-by" tasks that catch up
> > > state
> > > >> > >>> before
> > > >> > >>> > >> > the active task is switched deserve its own name in this
> > > KIP
> > > >> and
> > > >> > >>> maybe
> > > >> > >>> > >> > in the code. We have already stated that they are not
> > true
> > > >> > >>> stand-by
> > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks, they are not configured through
> > > >> `num.standby.replicas`,
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > >>> > >> > maybe they have also other properties that distinguish
> > them
> > > >> from
> > > >> > >>> true
> > > >> > >>> > >> > stand-by tasks of which we are not aware yet. For
> > example,
> > > >> they
> > > >> > >>> may be
> > > >> > >>> > >> > prioritized differently than other tasks. Furthermore,
> > the
> > > >> name
> > > >> > >>> > >> > "stand-by" does not really fit with the planned
> > > >> functionality of
> > > >> > >>> those
> > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks. In the following, I will call them false stand-by
> > > >> tasks.
> > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > 2. Did you consider to trigger the probing rebalances not
> > > at
> > > >> > >>> regular
> > > >> > >>> > >> > time intervals but when the false stand-by tasks reach an
> > > >> > >>> acceptable
> > > >> > >>> > >> > lag? If you did consider, could you add a paragraph why
> > you
> > > >> > >>> rejected
> > > >> > >>> > >> > this idea to the "Rejected Alternatives" section.
> > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > 3. Are tasks that solely contain stores with disabled
> > > logging
> > > >> > >>> > >> > classified as stateful or stateless in the algorithm? I
> > > would
> > > >> > >>> guess
> > > >> > >>> > >> > stateless, although if possible they should be assigned
> > to
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >>> same
> > > >> > >>> > >> > instance they had run before the rebalance. As far as I
> > can
> > > >> see
> > > >> > >>> this
> > > >> > >>> > >> > special case is not handled in the algorithm.
> > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > Best,
> > > >> > >>> > >> > Bruno
> > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:24 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > > >> > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > 1. Sounds good, just wanted to clarify; and it may
> > worth
> > > >> > >>> documenting
> > > >> > >>> > >> it
> > > >> > >>> > >> > so
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > that users would not be surprised when monitoring their
> > > >> > >>> footprint.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > 2. Hmm I see... I think the trade-off can be described
> > as
> > > >> "how
> > > >> > >>> much
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance would bother you to be willing to pay another
> > > >> > >>> rebalance,
> > > >> > >>> > >> along
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > with potentially more restoration lag", and the current
> > > >> > >>> definition
> > > >> > >>> > of
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > rebalance_factor can be considered as a rough
> > measurement
> > > >> of
> > > >> > >>> that
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance. Of course one can argue that a finer grained
> > > >> > >>> measurement
> > > >> > >>> > >> could
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > be "resource footprint" like CPU / storage of each
> > > instance
> > > >> > >>> like we
> > > >> > >>> > >> have
> > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > Kafka broker auto balancing tools, but I'd prefer not
> > > doing
> > > >> > >>> that as
> > > >> > >>> > >> part
> > > >> > >>> > >> > of
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > the library but more as an operational tool in the
> > > future.
> > > >> On
> > > >> > >>> the
> > > >> > >>> > >> other
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > hand, I've seen stateful and stateless tasks having
> > very
> > > >> > >>> different
> > > >> > >>> > >> load,
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > and sometimes the only bottleneck of a Streams app is
> > > just
> > > >> one
> > > >> > >>> > >> stateful
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > sub-topology and whoever gets tasks of that
> > sub-topology
> > > >> > become
> > > >> > >>> > >> hotspot
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > (and that's why our algorithm tries to balance per
> > > >> > sub-topology
> > > >> > >>> as
> > > >> > >>> > >> well),
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > so maybe we can just consider stateful tasks when
> > > >> calculating
> > > >> > >>> this
> > > >> > >>> > >> factor
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > as a very brute force heuristic?
> > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > 3.a. Thinking about this a bit more, maybe it's better
> > > not
> > > >> try
> > > >> > >>> to
> > > >> > >>> > >> tackle
> > > >> > >>> > >> > an
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > unseen enemy just yet, and observe if it really emerges
> > > >> later,
> > > >> > >>> and
> > > >> > >>> > by
> > > >> > >>> > >> > then
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > we may have other ways to not starving the standby
> > tasks,
> > > >> for
> > > >> > >>> > >> example, by
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or even
> > consider
> > > >> > having
> > > >> > >>> > >> higher
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > priority for standby than active so that we always try
> > to
> > > >> > >>> caught up
> > > >> > >>> > >> > standby
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > first, then process active; and if active's lagging
> > > >> compared
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > log-end-offset is increasing then we should increase
> > > >> capacity,
> > > >> > >>> etc
> > > >> > >>> > >> etc.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > 4. Actually with KIP-429 this may not be the case: we
> > may
> > > >> not
> > > >> > >>> call
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > onPartitionsRevoked prior to rebalance any more so
> > would
> > > >> not
> > > >> > >>> transit
> > > >> > >>> > >> > state
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > to PARTITIONS_REVOKED, and hence not cause the state of
> > > the
> > > >> > >>> instance
> > > >> > >>> > >> to
> > > >> > >>> > >> > be
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > REBALANCING. In other words, even if a instance is
> > > >> undergoing
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > >>> > >> rebalance
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > it's state may still be RUNNING and it may still be
> > > >> processing
> > > >> > >>> > >> records at
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > the same time.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:14 PM John Roesler <
> > > >> > john@confluent.io
> > > >> > >>> >
> > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks for the review!
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 1. Yes, even with `num.standby.replicas := 0`, we
> > will
> > > >> still
> > > >> > >>> > >> > temporarily
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allocate standby tasks to accomplish a no-downtime
> > task
> > > >> > >>> migration.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Although, I'd argue that this doesn't really violate
> > > the
> > > >> > >>> config,
> > > >> > >>> > as
> > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > task isn't a true hot standby. As soon as it catches
> > > up,
> > > >> > we'll
> > > >> > >>> > >> > rebalance
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > again, that task will become active, and the original
> > > >> > instance
> > > >> > >>> > that
> > > >> > >>> > >> > hosted
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the active task will no longer have the task assigned
> > > at
> > > >> > all.
> > > >> > >>> Once
> > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > stateDirCleaner kicks in, we'll free the disk space
> > > from
> > > >> it,
> > > >> > >>> and
> > > >> > >>> > >> > return to
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the steady-state of having just one copy of the task
> > in
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >>> > cluster.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > We can of course do without this, but I feel the
> > > current
> > > >> > >>> proposal
> > > >> > >>> > is
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > operationally preferable, since it doesn't make
> > > >> configuring
> > > >> > >>> > >> > hot-standbys a
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > pre-requisite for fast rebalances.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 2. Yes, I think your interpretation is what we
> > > intended.
> > > >> The
> > > >> > >>> > default
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor would be 1, as it is implicitly today.
> > > >> What
> > > >> > >>> this
> > > >> > >>> > >> does is
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allows operators to trade off less balanced
> > assignments
> > > >> > >>> against
> > > >> > >>> > >> fewer
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > rebalances. If you have lots of space capacity in
> > your
> > > >> > >>> instances,
> > > >> > >>> > >> this
> > > >> > >>> > >> > may
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be a perfectly fine tradeoff, and you may prefer for
> > > >> Streams
> > > >> > >>> not
> > > >> > >>> > to
> > > >> > >>> > >> > bother
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > streaming GBs of data from the broker in pursuit of
> > > >> perfect
> > > >> > >>> > balance.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > Not
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > married to this configuration, though. It was
> > inspired
> > > by
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > >>> > >> related
> > > >> > >>> > >> > work
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > research we did.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3. I'll take a look
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3a. I think this is a good idea. I'd classify it as a
> > > >> type
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > >>> grey
> > > >> > >>> > >> > failure
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > detection. It may make more sense to tackle grey
> > > >> failures as
> > > >> > >>> part
> > > >> > >>> > of
> > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > heartbeat protocol (as I POCed here:
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/7096/files).
> > > WDYT?
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 4. Good catch! I didn't think about that before.
> > > Looking
> > > >> at
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > >>> > now,
> > > >> > >>> > >> > though,
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > I wonder if we're actually protected already. The
> > > >> > >>> stateDirCleaner
> > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > only executes if the instance is in RUNNING state,
> > and
> > > >> > KIP-441
> > > >> > >>> > >> > proposes to
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > use "probing rebalances" to report task lag. Hence,
> > > >> during
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > >>> > >> window
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > between when the instance reports a lag and the
> > > assignor
> > > >> > >>> makes a
> > > >> > >>> > >> > decision
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > about it, the instance should remain in REBALANCING
> > > >> state,
> > > >> > >>> right?
> > > >> > >>> > If
> > > >> > >>> > >> > so,
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > then this should prevent the race condition. If not,
> > > >> then we
> > > >> > >>> do
> > > >> > >>> > >> indeed
> > > >> > >>> > >> > need
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > to do something about it.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 5. Good idea. I think that today, you can only see
> > the
> > > >> > >>> consumer
> > > >> > >>> > lag,
> > > >> > >>> > >> > which
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > is a poor substitute. I'll add some metrics to the
> > > >> proposal.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks again for the comments!
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > -John
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:27 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > >> > >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > >> > >>> > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Hello Sophie,
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I left some comments
> > on
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >>> wiki
> > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > and I
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > think I'm still not very clear on a couple or
> > those:
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 1. With this proposal, does that mean with
> > > >> > >>> num.standby.replicas
> > > >> > >>> > ==
> > > >> > >>> > >> > 0, we
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > may sometimes still have some standby tasks which
> > may
> > > >> > >>> violate
> > > >> > >>> > the
> > > >> > >>> > >> > config?
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 2. I think I understand the rationale to consider
> > > lags
> > > >> > that
> > > >> > >>> is
> > > >> > >>> > >> below
> > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > specified threshold to be equal, rather than still
> > > >> > >>> considering
> > > >> > >>> > >> 5000
> > > >> > >>> > >> > is
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > better than 5001 -- we do not want to
> > "over-optimize"
> > > >> and
> > > >> > >>> > >> potentially
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > falls
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > into endless rebalances back and forth.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > But I'm not clear about the rationale of the second
> > > >> > >>> parameter of
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> constrainedBalancedAssignment(StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates,
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > balance_factor):
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Does that mean, e.g. with balance_factor of 3, we'd
> > > >> > >>> consider two
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > assignments one resulting balance_factor 0 and one
> > > >> > resulting
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3 to be equally optimized assignment and therefore
> > > may
> > > >> > "stop
> > > >> > >>> > >> early"?
> > > >> > >>> > >> > This
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > was not very convincing to me :P
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3. There are a couple of minor comments about the
> > > >> > algorithm
> > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > >> > >>> > >> > left
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > on
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the wiki page since it needs to refer to the exact
> > > line
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > >>> > better
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > displayed there.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3.a Another wild thought about the threshold
> > itself:
> > > >> today
> > > >> > >>> the
> > > >> > >>> > >> > assignment
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > itself is memoryless, so we would not know if the
> > > >> reported
> > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLag`
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > itself
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > is increasing or decreasing even if the current
> > value
> > > >> is
> > > >> > >>> under
> > > >> > >>> > the
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > threshold. I wonder if it worthy to make it a bit
> > > more
> > > >> > >>> > >> complicated to
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > track
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > task lag trend at the assignor? Practically it may
> > > not
> > > >> be
> > > >> > >>> very
> > > >> > >>> > >> > uncommon
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that stand-by tasks are not keeping up due to the
> > > fact
> > > >> > that
> > > >> > >>> > other
> > > >> > >>> > >> > active
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > tasks hosted on the same thread is starving the
> > > standby
> > > >> > >>> tasks.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 4. There's a potential race condition risk when
> > > >> reporting
> > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLags`
> > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > subscription: right after reporting it to the
> > leader,
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >>> > cleanup
> > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > kicks in and deletes the state directory. If the
> > task
> > > >> was
> > > >> > >>> > assigned
> > > >> > >>> > >> > to the
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > host it would cause it to restore from beginning
> > and
> > > >> > >>> effectively
> > > >> > >>> > >> > make the
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > seemingly optimized assignment very sub-optimal.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > To be on the safer side we should consider either
> > > prune
> > > >> > out
> > > >> > >>> > those
> > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that are "close to be cleaned up" in the
> > > subscription,
> > > >> or
> > > >> > we
> > > >> > >>> > >> should
> > > >> > >>> > >> > delay
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the cleanup right after we've included them in the
> > > >> > >>> subscription
> > > >> > >>> > in
> > > >> > >>> > >> > case
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > they are been selected as assigned tasks by the
> > > >> assignor.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 5. This is a meta comment: I think it would be
> > > helpful
> > > >> to
> > > >> > >>> add
> > > >> > >>> > some
> > > >> > >>> > >> > user
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > visibility on the standby tasks lagging as well,
> > via
> > > >> > >>> metrics for
> > > >> > >>> > >> > example.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Today it is hard for us to observe how far are our
> > > >> current
> > > >> > >>> > standby
> > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > compared to the active tasks and whether that lag
> > is
> > > >> being
> > > >> > >>> > >> > increasing or
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > decreasing. As a follow-up task, for example, the
> > > >> > rebalance
> > > >> > >>> > should
> > > >> > >>> > >> > also
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > triggered if we realize that some standby task's
> > lag
> > > is
> > > >> > >>> > increasing
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > indefinitely means that it cannot keep up (which is
> > > >> > another
> > > >> > >>> > >> indicator
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > either you need to add more resources with the
> > > >> > num.standbys
> > > >> > >>> or
> > > >> > >>> > >> your
> > > >> > >>> > >> > are
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > still not balanced enough).
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:32 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman
> > <
> > > >> > >>> > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Hey all,
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > I'd like to kick off discussion on KIP-441, aimed
> > > at
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >>> long
> > > >> > >>> > >> > restore
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > times
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > in Streams during which further active processing
> > > >> and IQ
> > > >> > >>> are
> > > >> > >>> > >> > blocked.
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Please give it a read and let us know your
> > thoughts
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > >> > >>> >
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Sophie
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > --
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > --
> > > >> > >>> > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > >> > >>> > >> --
> > > >> > >>> > >> -- Guozhang
> > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > >> > >>> > >
> > > >> > >>> >
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> --
> > > >> > >>> -- Guozhang
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
> >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams

Posted by John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>.

Aha! I did miss that detail in your email before. Sorry for my density.

It does seem like, if it turns out to be a problem, it would be pretty
straightforward to add your proposal in. It wouldn't even require a version
bump, because the wire protocol and the assignment algorithm would be
mutually intelligible with and without this tweak.

Thanks for the thorough review! I'll start the vote shortly.

Thanks,
-John

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:27 AM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello John,
>
> What I was thinking is that for other hosts of non-logged store only tasks,
> they will be ranked with a lag of "1" (as I tried to illustrate with
> "StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates[task][1]
> := instance" in the previous email), so that the current host would be
> ranked first, while others would be ranked equally second. So the scenario
> would be:
>
> 1. For non-logged store only tasks, the current owner is ranked with lag
> "0", all others ranked with lag "1".
> 2. For mixed non-logged and logged store tasks, the current owned is ranked
> with lag "0", all others ranked by the summed lag of logged stores. And of
> course, for those whose summed lag is below the threshold, they will be
> ranked with lag "0" as well.
>
> But I agree that the case 1) requires special handling logic indeed: you
> need to first tell which tasks are non-logged store only tasks, and then
> add a lag "1" for all other instances. Since non-logged store only tasks
> are not very common so far I think I agree that it may not worth the
> special handling effort anyways, and if people complain about the
> non-stickiness we can always come back and revisit this policy anyways, so
> I'm fine with the current proposal as-is as well.
>
> Just made another pass on the wiki page and it LGTM to me now, I'm +1 on
> the KIP.
>
>
> Guozhang
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:19 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > I see; thanks for the clarification, Guozhang.
> >
> > If the prior owner of a non-logged, stateful task always reports 0, and
> all
> > other instances report nothing, then it seems like we need a special case
> > in the assignor to handle assigning these. I.e., the strategy of creating
> > "movement" standbys and waiting for them to be equally caught up to the
> > leader before moving the task with zero downtime doesn't work. Since no
> > standby tasks are possible for non-logged tasks, the other instances
> would
> > never be able to "catch up", and the algorithm would be doomed to just
> > continue pinning the task to its current instance, and would potentially
> > never be able to balance the cluster.
> >
> > Unless, of course, we put in a special case that says to keep it assigned
> > for a while and then move it.
> >
> > But in this case, how do we decide when to move it; it seems like any
> time
> > is as good as any other. And if this is the case, then we might as well
> > just move it right away, which is what the KIP currently proposes.
> >
> > Also, it seems like this creates an asymmetry with the handling of
> > non-logged stores in mixed logged/non-logged tasks (case (1) above). In
> > that case, we agree that the algorithm will make assignments without
> regard
> > to the non-logged stores at all, and would freely move the task between
> two
> > instances that are "equally" caught up on the logged stores. But if a
> task
> > contains only non-logged stores, it sounds like we would not have this
> > freedom of movement, but would just keep giving it back to the instance
> > that previously owned it?
> >
> > Regarding the latter comment, thanks for pointing out my oversight. I've
> > added the section "Iterative Balancing Assignments" to define this
> > behavior:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-IterativeBalancingAssignments
> >  .
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -John
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 5:58 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi John,
> > >
> > > I think I may mis-communicate my ideas a bit, what I meant is simply
> for
> > > case 1), let the active tasks reporting a lag of 0 instead of not
> > reporting
> > > any lags at all; in addition, for other hosts not hosting this tasks,
> and
> > > hence we do not know the offset lag at all we set the
> > > "StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates[task][1]
> > > := instance" just to make sure the current host is ranked the first
> while
> > > all others are ranked equally after it. In this case we would still
> favor
> > > stickiness for not moving such tasks out of its current host unless it
> > > violates balance, in which case we are free to move it to any other
> > hosts.
> > > Does that make sense?
> > >
> > > Also I just realized that in the update wiki page the algorithm section
> > of
> > > iteratively assigning / moving tasks based on
> > > StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates until convergence was missing (it was
> > there
> > > in the previous version), could you add it back?
> > >
> > > Guozhang
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:59 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the reply, Guozhang,
> > > >
> > > > I'll start by re-stating your cases, just to make sure we're on the
> > same
> > > > page...
> > > >
> > > > 1) The task is stateful, and all its stores are non-logged. For this
> > case
> > > > under the proposal, we would not have any standbys and the active
> > version
> > > > would actually not report any lag at all (not a lag of 0). Thus, all
> > > > instances would be considered equal when it comes to assignment,
> > although
> > > > the assignment logic would know that the task is "heavy" because it
> has
> > > > those non-logged stores and factor that in to the overall cluster
> > > balance.
> > > >
> > > > 2) The task is stateful and maybe has one logged and one non-logged
> > > store.
> > > > As you say, in this case, the non-logged store would not contribute
> at
> > > all
> > > > to anyone's reported lag. The active task would report a lag of 0,
> and
> > > the
> > > > standbys would report their lag on the logged store. The assignment
> > logic
> > > > would take these reported lags into account.
> > > >
> > > > It sounds like there might be some dissonance on point (1). It sounds
> > > like
> > > > you're saying we should try to assign non-logged stateful tasks back
> to
> > > an
> > > > instance that has previously hosted it, or maybe we should assign it
> > back
> > > > to the most recent instance that hosted it, and then only reassign it
> > if
> > > > the movement would affect balance. I guess I'm not opposed to this,
> > but I
> > > > also don't really see the advantage. The fact is that we'd still wind
> > up
> > > > migrating it much of the time, so no one could depend on it not
> getting
> > > > migrated, and at the same time we're paying a significant complexity
> > cost
> > > > in the assignor to support this case. Plus, we need to encode the
> > > previous
> > > > owner of the task somehow in the wire protocol, which means we pay a
> > > > payload-size penalty to support it as well.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, we should make our assignment as stable as
> possible
> > in
> > > > the implementation to avoid pointless "swapping" of logged and
> > non-logged
> > > > stateful tasks, as well as stateless tasks when it doesn't change the
> > > > balance at all to do so. It seems like this should accomplish the
> same
> > > > spiritual goal with no special cases.
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > > -John
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:26 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello John,
> > > > >
> > > > > Your reasoning about non-logged state store looks good to me. But I
> > > think
> > > > > it worth considering two cases differently: 1) a task's all state
> > > stores
> > > > > are non-logged, 2) a task has non-logged state store but also have
> > > other
> > > > > logged state store.
> > > > >
> > > > > For 1), we should not have any standbys for such tasks at all, but
> it
> > > is
> > > > > not the same as a stateless task, because the only active task
> could
> > > > report
> > > > > a lag of "0" while all others should logically report the lag as
> > > infinity
> > > > > (of course, they would not encode such value).
> > > > >
> > > > > For 2), it is sort of the same to a normal case: active task
> > reporting
> > > a
> > > > > lag of 0 while standby task reporting a lag summing all other
> logged
> > > > state
> > > > > stores, meaning that the non-logged state store does not matter in
> > our
> > > > > assignment semantics.
> > > > >
> > > > > The rationale I had is to effectively favor stickiness for those
> > tasks
> > > in
> > > > > case 1) than arbitrarily reassign them even though it is true that
> > for
> > > a
> > > > > non-logged store there's no durability and hence restoration
> > guarantees
> > > > > anyways from Streams. Then algorithmically we may consider
> assigning
> > > > tasks
> > > > > with descending order of the number of instances reporting lags for
> > it,
> > > > > then for such tasks there's always one candidate reporting a lag of
> > 0,
> > > > and
> > > > > assigning them to any instance does not actually change the
> cumulated
> > > > total
> > > > > lag either. At that time we can decide "if it is still within load
> > > > balance
> > > > > factor, then let's respect stickiness, otherwise it's free to
> move".
> > > > WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Bruno,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for taking another look. Some quick responses:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) It just means the number of offsets in the topic. E.g., the
> LSO
> > is
> > > > > 100,
> > > > > > but the first offset is 40 due to retention, so there are 60
> > offsets
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > topic. Further, the lag on that topic would be considered to be
> 60
> > > for
> > > > > any
> > > > > > task that hadn't previously done any work on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) This is undecidable in general. I.e., there's no way we can
> know
> > > > > whether
> > > > > > the store is remote or not, and hence whether we can freely
> assign
> > it
> > > > to
> > > > > > another instance, or whether we have to keep it on the same
> > instance.
> > > > > > However, there are a couple of reasons to go ahead and assume we
> > have
> > > > the
> > > > > > freedom to move such tasks.
> > > > > > * We know that nothing can prevent the loss of an instance in a
> > > cluster
> > > > > > (I.e., this is true of all cloud environments, as well as any
> > managed
> > > > > > virtualized cluster like mesos or kubernetes), so any Streams
> > program
> > > > > that
> > > > > > makes use of non-remote, non-logged state is doomed to lose its
> > state
> > > > > when
> > > > > > it loses an instance.
> > > > > > * If we take on a restriction that we cannot move such state
> > between
> > > > > > instances, we'd become overconstrained very quickly. Effectively,
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > > made use of non-logged stores, and we didn't assume freedom of
> > > > movement,
> > > > > > then we couldn't make use of any new instances in your cluster.
> > > > > > * On the other hand, if we optimistically assume we can't move
> > state,
> > > > but
> > > > > > only reassign it when we lose an instance, then we're supporting
> > > > > > non-deterministic logic, because the program would produce
> > different
> > > > > > results, depending on whether you lost a node during the
> execution
> > or
> > > > > not.
> > > > > > 2b) That last point goes along with your side note. I'm not sure
> if
> > > we
> > > > > > should bother dropping such state on every reassignment, though.
> It
> > > > seems
> > > > > > to be undefined territory enough that we can just do the simplest
> > > thing
> > > > > and
> > > > > > assume people have made their own (external) provisions for
> > > durability.
> > > > > > I.e., when we say "non-logged", we mean that it doesn't make use
> of
> > > > _our_
> > > > > > durability mechanism. I'm arguing that the only sane assumption
> is
> > > that
> > > > > > such folks have opted to use their own durability measures, and
> we
> > > > should
> > > > > > just assume it works with no special considerations in the
> > assignment
> > > > > > algorithm.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) Good catch! I've fixed it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks again!
> > > > > > -John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:09 AM Bruno Cadonna <bruno@confluent.io
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) What do you mean with "full set of offsets in the topic"? Is
> > > this
> > > > > > > the sum of all offsets of the changelog partitions of the task?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) I am not sure whether non-logged stateful tasks should be
> > > > > > > effectively treated as stateless tasks during assignment. First
> > we
> > > > > > > need to decide whether a non-logged stateful task should
> > preferably
> > > > be
> > > > > > > assigned to the same instance on which it just run in order to
> > > > > > > continue to use its state or not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3) In the example, you define stand-by tasks {S1, S2, ...} but
> > > never
> > > > > > > use them, because below you use a dedicated row for stand-by
> > tasks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a side note to 2) since it is not directly related to this
> > KIP:
> > > We
> > > > > > > should decide if we want to avoid the possible non-determinism
> > > > > > > introduced by non-logged stores or not. That is, if an instance
> > > hosts
> > > > > > > a task with non-logged stores then we can have two cases after
> > the
> > > > > > > next rebalance: a) the task stays on the same instance and
> > > continues
> > > > > > > to use the same state store as used so far or b) the task is
> > > assigned
> > > > > > > to another instance and it starts an empty state store. The
> > > produced
> > > > > > > results for these two cases might differ. To avoid the
> > > > nondeterminism,
> > > > > > > non-logged state stores would need to be wiped out before
> > > assignment.
> > > > > > > Then the question arises, how the removal of non-logged state
> > > stores
> > > > > > > before assignment would affect backward-compatibility.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:40 PM John Roesler <
> john@confluent.io
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My impression from your previous email is that inside the
> > > > algorithm
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > are "filling" them to instances some deterministic logic
> would
> > be
> > > > > used
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > avoid the above case, is that correct?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, that was my plan, but I didn't formalize it. There was a
> > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > that the assignment algorithm must not produce a new
> assignment
> > > if
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > current assignment is already balanced, so at the least, any
> > > > > thrashing
> > > > > > > > would be restricted to the "balancing" phase while tasks are
> > > moving
> > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > the cluster.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anyway, I think it would be good to say that we'll "try to"
> > > produce
> > > > > > > stable
> > > > > > > > assignments, so I've added a "should" clause to the
> assignment
> > > > spec:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-AssignmentAlgorithm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For example, we would sort the stateless tasks and available
> > > > > instances
> > > > > > > > before assigning them, so that the stateless task assignment
> > > would
> > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > stay stable between assignments, modulo the compute capacity
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > > instances changing a little as active stateful tasks get
> > assigned
> > > > in
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > balanced ways.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > -John
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:55 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hello John,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That sounds reasonable. Just double checked the code that
> > with
> > > > > > logging
> > > > > > > > > disabled the corresponding checkpoint file would not
> contain
> > > any
> > > > > > > values,
> > > > > > > > > just like a stateless task. So I think treating them
> > logically
> > > > the
> > > > > > > same is
> > > > > > > > > fine.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM John Roesler <
> > > john@confluent.io
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi again, Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > While writing up the section on stateless tasks (
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statelesstasks
> > > > > > > > > > ),
> > > > > > > > > > I reconsidered whether stateful, but non-logged, tasks
> > should
> > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > report a lag of zero, versus not reporting any lag. By
> the
> > > > > > > definition of
> > > > > > > > > > the "StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates" function, the
> leader
> > > > would
> > > > > > > compute
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > lag of zero for these tasks anyway.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Therefore, I think the same reasoning that I supplied you
> > for
> > > > > > > stateless
> > > > > > > > > > tasks applies, since the member and leader will agree on
> a
> > > lag
> > > > of
> > > > > > > zero
> > > > > > > > > > anyway, we can avoid adding them to the "Task Lags" map,
> > and
> > > > save
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > bytes in the JoinGroup request. This would be especially
> > > > > beneficial
> > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > > application that uses remote stores for _all_ its state
> > > stores,
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > have an extremely lightweight JoinGroup request, with no
> > task
> > > > > lags
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > all.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > -John
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:17 PM John Roesler <
> > > > john@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Guozhang.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (Side note: I noticed on another pass over the
> discussion
> > > > that
> > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > missed
> > > > > > > > > > > addressing your comment about the potential race
> > condition
> > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > > cleanup and lag-based assignment. I've added a solution
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > proposal:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Racebetweenassignmentandstatecleanup
> > > > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In the JoinGroup (SubscriptionInfo) metadata, stateless
> > > tasks
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > represented at all. This should save us some bytes in
> the
> > > > > request
> > > > > > > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > > > > > > If we treated them like non-logged stateful tasks and
> > > > reported
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > lag of
> > > > > > > > > > 0,
> > > > > > > > > > > the only difference is that the assignor would be able
> to
> > > > tell
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > members previously hosted that stateless task.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to make a simplifying assumption that
> stateless
> > > > tasks
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > freely reassigned with no regard to stickiness at all,
> > > > without
> > > > > > > > > impacting
> > > > > > > > > > > performance. This is almost true. In fact, while
> > assigned a
> > > > > > > stateless
> > > > > > > > > > task,
> > > > > > > > > > > a member fetches batches of records from the broker, so
> > if
> > > we
> > > > > > move
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > stateless task assignment, this buffered input is
> wasted
> > > and
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > gets
> > > > > > > > > > > dropped.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > However, we won't be moving the stateless tasks around
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > (just
> > > > > > > > > > > during rebalances), and we have the requirement that
> the
> > > > > > assigment
> > > > > > > > > > > algorithm must stabilize to guard against perpetually
> > > > > shuffling a
> > > > > > > > > > stateless
> > > > > > > > > > > task from one node to another. So, my hope is that this
> > > small
> > > > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > > > > > inefficiency would not be a performance-dominating
> > factor.
> > > In
> > > > > > > exchange,
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > gain the opportunity for the assignment algorithm to
> use
> > > the
> > > > > > > stateless
> > > > > > > > > > > tasks as "filler" during unbalanced assignments. For
> > > example,
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > > > node that is just warming up with several standby
> tasks,
> > > > maybe
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > assignment can give more stateless tasks to that node
> to
> > > > > balance
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > computational load across the cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It's worth noting that such an assignment would still
> not
> > > be
> > > > > > > considered
> > > > > > > > > > > "balanced", so the ultimately balanced final state of
> the
> > > > > > > assignment
> > > > > > > > > > (after
> > > > > > > > > > > task movements) would still have the desired property
> > that
> > > > each
> > > > > > > > > stateful
> > > > > > > > > > > and stateless task is evenly spread across the cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Does that seem reasonable?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > -John
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:22 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Hello John,
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> I've made another pass on the wiki page again, overall
> > > LGTM.
> > > > > One
> > > > > > > meta
> > > > > > > > > > >> comment about the "stateless" tasks: how do we
> represent
> > > > them
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> metadata? Are they just treated as stateful tasks with
> > > > logging
> > > > > > > > > disabled,
> > > > > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > > > > >> are specially handled? It is not very clear in the
> > > > > description.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:43 AM John Roesler <
> > > > > john@confluent.io
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > I have also specifically called out that the
> > assignment
> > > > must
> > > > > > > achieve
> > > > > > > > > > >> both
> > > > > > > > > > >> > "instance" and "task" balance:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Defining%22balance%22
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > I've also addressed the problem of state stores with
> > > > logging
> > > > > > > > > disabled:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statewithloggingdisabled
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > I believe this addresses all the concerns that have
> > been
> > > > > > raised
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > date.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Apologies if I've overlooked one of your concerns.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Please give the KIP another read and let me know of
> > any
> > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > >> thoughts!
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Hopefully, we can start the voting on this KIP by
> the
> > > end
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > week.
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > -John
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:16 PM John Roesler <
> > > > > > john@confluent.io
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > In response to Bruno's concern #2, I've also added
> > > that
> > > > > > > section to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > "Rejected Alternatives" section.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Additionally, after reviewing some other
> assignment
> > > > > papers,
> > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > >> > developed
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > the concern that specifying which "phases" the
> > > > assignment
> > > > > > > > > algorithm
> > > > > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > have, or indeed the logic of it at all, might be a
> > > > mistake
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > over-constrains our ability to write an optimal
> > > > algorithm.
> > > > > > > > > > Therefore,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > I've
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > also refactored the KIP to just describe the
> > protocol,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > specify
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > requirements for the assignment algorithm, but not
> > its
> > > > > exact
> > > > > > > > > > behavior
> > > > > > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > all.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > -John
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:13 PM John Roesler <
> > > > > > > john@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Thanks for the discussion. I've been considering
> > the
> > > > idea
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > giving
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> "catching up" tasks a different name/role. I was
> in
> > > > favor
> > > > > > > > > > initially,
> > > > > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> after working though some details, I think it
> > causes
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > problems,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > which
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> I've written up in the "rejected alternatives"
> part
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > KIP:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Addinganewkindoftask(%22moving%22,%22recovering%22,%22learner%22)fortaskmovements
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Please give it a read and let me know what you
> > think.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> -John
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:57 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> I think I agree with you Sophie. My gut feeling
> is
> > > > that
> > > > > 1)
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> the major concern in assignor's algorithm for
> > > standby
> > > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > >> > catching
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> up, but rather be tackled in different modules,
> > and
> > > > 2) a
> > > > > > > lot of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> optimization can be down at the stream thread
> > > itself,
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > dedicated
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> threading and larger batching, or even
> complicated
> > > > > > > scheduling
> > > > > > > > > > >> > mechanisms
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> between running, restoring and standby tasks. In
> > > > > anyways,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > >> > can
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> take this out of the scope of KIP-441 for now.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:48 PM Sophie
> > Blee-Goldman <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > we may have other ways to not starving the
> > > standby
> > > > > > > tasks,
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> example, by
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or
> > even
> > > > > > > consider
> > > > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > *higher> priority for standby than active* so
> > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > > always
> > > > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> caught
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > up standby
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > first, then process active
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > This is an interesting idea, but seems likely
> to
> > > get
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > original idea of this KIP
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > -- if we always process standby tasks first,
> > then
> > > if
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > >> assigned
> > > > > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby task we
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > will have to wait for it to catch up
> completely
> > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > > >> any
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > active tasks! That's
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > even worse than the situation this KIP is
> trying
> > > to
> > > > > help
> > > > > > > with,
> > > > > > > > > > >> since
> > > > > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby task has to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > restore from 0 (whereas an active task at
> least
> > > can
> > > > > take
> > > > > > > over
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> wherever
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > the standby was).
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > During restoration -- while there exist any
> > > > restoring
> > > > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > > > -- I
> > > > > > > > > > >> > think
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> it's
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > reasonable to de-prioritize the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby tasks and just process restoring and
> > > active
> > > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > progress. But we should
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > let them catch up afterwards somehow -- maybe
> we
> > > can
> > > > > > apply
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > >> kind
> > > > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > heuristic, like "if we haven't
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > processed standbys for X iterations, or Y
> > > > > milliseconds,
> > > > > > > do so
> > > > > > > > > > >> now."
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > Actually, it might even be beneficial to avoid
> > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > > >> standbys a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> record
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > or two at a time and instead
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > wait for a large enough batch to build up for
> > the
> > > > > > RocksDB
> > > > > > > > > > >> > bulk-loading
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > benefits.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > I think the "use dedicated threads for
> standby"
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > >> promising
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> end
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > goal, especially since
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > if we split restoration into "restoring tasks"
> > > then
> > > > > > > active and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > standbys
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > share almost nothing. But
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > that seems like follow-up work to the current
> > KIP
> > > :)
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:31 PM Sophie
> > > Blee-Goldman <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > Stateful tasks with logging disabled seem to
> > be
> > > an
> > > > > > > > > interesting
> > > > > > > > > > >> edge
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> case.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > On the one hand,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > for balancing purposes they should be
> > considered
> > > > > > > stateful
> > > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > Guozhang pointed out
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > they are still "heavy" in IO costs. But for
> > > > > "catching
> > > > > > > up"
> > > > > > > > > > >> purposes,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> ie
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > when allocating standby
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks that will become active tasks, they
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > considered
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> stateless
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > as there is so
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > meaningful sense of their lag. We should
> never
> > > > > > allocate
> > > > > > > > > > standby
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> tasks for
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > them during the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > first rebalance, but should ensure they are
> > > evenly
> > > > > > > > > distributed
> > > > > > > > > > >> > across
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > instances. Maybe we
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > should split these into a third category --
> > > after
> > > > we
> > > > > > > assign
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> stateful
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks with logging, we
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > then distribute the set of logging-disabled
> > > > stateful
> > > > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > improve
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > balance, before lastly
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > distributing stateless tasks?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > This actually leads into what I was just
> > > thinking,
> > > > > > > which is
> > > > > > > > > > >> that we
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > really
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > should distinguish the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > "catch-up" standbys from normal standbys as
> > well
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > >> distinguishing
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > actively processing tasks
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > from active tasks that are still in the
> > restore
> > > > > phase.
> > > > > > > It's
> > > > > > > > > > >> > somewhat
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > awkward that today, some
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > active tasks just start processing
> immediately
> > > > while
> > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > >> behave
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> more
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > like standby than active
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks for some time, before switching to
> real
> > > > > active.
> > > > > > > They
> > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > >> > use
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > restoreConsumer, then
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > later only the "normal" consumer.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > However, this restore period is still
> distinct
> > > > from
> > > > > > > normal
> > > > > > > > > > >> standbys
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> in a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > lot of ways -- the code path
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > for restoring is different than for updating
> > > > > standbys,
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> example
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> in how
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > long we block on #poll.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > So in addition to giving them their own name
> > --
> > > > > let's
> > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> restoring
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > task for now -- they really
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > do seem to deserve being their own distinct
> > > task.
> > > > We
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > >> optimize
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> them
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > efficient conversion
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > to active tasks since we know that's what
> they
> > > > will
> > > > > > be.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > This resolves some of the awkwardness of
> > dealing
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> special
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> case
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > mentioned above: we
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > find a balanced assignment of stateful and
> > > > stateless
> > > > > > > tasks,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> create
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > restoring tasks as needed.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > If logging is disabled, no restoring task is
> > > > > created.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:44 PM Guozhang
> Wang <
> > > > > > > > > > >> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> Regarding 3) above: I think for active task
> > > they
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> considered
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful since the processor would still
> pay
> > IO
> > > > > cost
> > > > > > > > > > accessing
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > store,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> but they would not have standby tasks?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:49 AM Bruno
> Cadonna
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> bruno@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Thank you for the KIP!
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Some questions/comments:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 1. I am wondering if the "stand-by" tasks
> > > that
> > > > > > catch
> > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> before
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the active task is switched deserve its
> own
> > > > name
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> maybe
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in the code. We have already stated that
> > they
> > > > are
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > true
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> stand-by
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks, they are not configured through
> > > > > > > > > > >> `num.standby.replicas`,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > maybe they have also other properties
> that
> > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > >> from
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> true
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > stand-by tasks of which we are not aware
> > yet.
> > > > For
> > > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > >> they
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> may be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > prioritized differently than other tasks.
> > > > > > > Furthermore,
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> name
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > "stand-by" does not really fit with the
> > > planned
> > > > > > > > > > >> functionality of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> those
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks. In the following, I will call them
> > > false
> > > > > > > stand-by
> > > > > > > > > > >> tasks.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 2. Did you consider to trigger the
> probing
> > > > > > > rebalances not
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> regular
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > time intervals but when the false
> stand-by
> > > > tasks
> > > > > > > reach an
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> acceptable
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > lag? If you did consider, could you add a
> > > > > paragraph
> > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> rejected
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > this idea to the "Rejected Alternatives"
> > > > section.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 3. Are tasks that solely contain stores
> > with
> > > > > > disabled
> > > > > > > > > > logging
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > classified as stateful or stateless in
> the
> > > > > > > algorithm? I
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> guess
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > stateless, although if possible they
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > > assigned
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> same
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > instance they had run before the
> rebalance.
> > > As
> > > > > far
> > > > > > > as I
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > >> see
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > special case is not handled in the
> > algorithm.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Bruno
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:24 AM Guozhang
> > Wang
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 1. Sounds good, just wanted to clarify;
> > and
> > > > it
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> documenting
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> it
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > so
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > that users would not be surprised when
> > > > > monitoring
> > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> footprint.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 2. Hmm I see... I think the trade-off
> can
> > > be
> > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > >> "how
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> much
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance would bother you to be
> willing
> > to
> > > > pay
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> rebalance,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> along
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > with potentially more restoration lag",
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> definition
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > rebalance_factor can be considered as a
> > > rough
> > > > > > > > > measurement
> > > > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance. Of course one can argue
> that a
> > > > finer
> > > > > > > grained
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> measurement
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> could
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > be "resource footprint" like CPU /
> > storage
> > > of
> > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> like we
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> have
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > Kafka broker auto balancing tools, but
> > I'd
> > > > > prefer
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> that as
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> part
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the library but more as an operational
> > tool
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > >> On
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> other
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > hand, I've seen stateful and stateless
> > > tasks
> > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> different
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> load,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > and sometimes the only bottleneck of a
> > > > Streams
> > > > > > app
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > >> one
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > sub-topology and whoever gets tasks of
> > that
> > > > > > > > > sub-topology
> > > > > > > > > > >> > become
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> hotspot
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > (and that's why our algorithm tries to
> > > > balance
> > > > > > per
> > > > > > > > > > >> > sub-topology
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> as
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> well),
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > so maybe we can just consider stateful
> > > tasks
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > >> calculating
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> factor
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > as a very brute force heuristic?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 3.a. Thinking about this a bit more,
> > maybe
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > >> try
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> tackle
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > an
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > unseen enemy just yet, and observe if
> it
> > > > really
> > > > > > > emerges
> > > > > > > > > > >> later,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > by
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > then
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > we may have other ways to not starving
> > the
> > > > > > standby
> > > > > > > > > tasks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> example, by
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > using dedicate threads for standby
> tasks
> > or
> > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > consider
> > > > > > > > > > >> > having
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> higher
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > priority for standby than active so
> that
> > we
> > > > > > always
> > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> caught up
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > standby
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > first, then process active; and if
> > active's
> > > > > > lagging
> > > > > > > > > > >> compared
> > > > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > log-end-offset is increasing then we
> > should
> > > > > > > increase
> > > > > > > > > > >> capacity,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> etc
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> etc.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 4. Actually with KIP-429 this may not
> be
> > > the
> > > > > > case:
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> call
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > onPartitionsRevoked prior to rebalance
> > any
> > > > more
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> transit
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > state
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > to PARTITIONS_REVOKED, and hence not
> > cause
> > > > the
> > > > > > > state of
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> instance
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > REBALANCING. In other words, even if a
> > > > instance
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> undergoing
> > > > > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> rebalance
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > it's state may still be RUNNING and it
> > may
> > > > > still
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> processing
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> records at
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the same time.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:14 PM John
> > > Roesler
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > john@confluent.io
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks for the review!
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 1. Yes, even with
> `num.standby.replicas
> > > :=
> > > > > 0`,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > >> still
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > temporarily
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allocate standby tasks to accomplish
> a
> > > > > > > no-downtime
> > > > > > > > > task
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> migration.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Although, I'd argue that this doesn't
> > > > really
> > > > > > > violate
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> config,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > as
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > task isn't a true hot standby. As
> soon
> > as
> > > > it
> > > > > > > catches
> > > > > > > > > > up,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > we'll
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > rebalance
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > again, that task will become active,
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > original
> > > > > > > > > > >> > instance
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > hosted
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the active task will no longer have
> the
> > > > task
> > > > > > > assigned
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >> > all.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Once
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > stateDirCleaner kicks in, we'll free
> > the
> > > > disk
> > > > > > > space
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > >> it,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > return to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the steady-state of having just one
> > copy
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > task
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > We can of course do without this,
> but I
> > > > feel
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> proposal
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > operationally preferable, since it
> > > doesn't
> > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > >> configuring
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > hot-standbys a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > pre-requisite for fast rebalances.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 2. Yes, I think your interpretation
> is
> > > what
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > intended.
> > > > > > > > > > >> The
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > default
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor would be 1, as it is
> > > > > implicitly
> > > > > > > today.
> > > > > > > > > > >> What
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> does is
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allows operators to trade off less
> > > balanced
> > > > > > > > > assignments
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> against
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> fewer
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > rebalances. If you have lots of space
> > > > > capacity
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> instances,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> this
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > may
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be a perfectly fine tradeoff, and you
> > may
> > > > > > prefer
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> Streams
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> not
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > bother
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > streaming GBs of data from the broker
> > in
> > > > > > pursuit
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> perfect
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > balance.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Not
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > married to this configuration,
> though.
> > It
> > > > was
> > > > > > > > > inspired
> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> related
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > work
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > research we did.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3. I'll take a look
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3a. I think this is a good idea. I'd
> > > > classify
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> grey
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > failure
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > detection. It may make more sense to
> > > tackle
> > > > > > grey
> > > > > > > > > > >> failures as
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> part
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > heartbeat protocol (as I POCed here:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/7096/files
> > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 4. Good catch! I didn't think about
> > that
> > > > > > before.
> > > > > > > > > > Looking
> > > > > > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > now,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > though,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > I wonder if we're actually protected
> > > > already.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> stateDirCleaner
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > only executes if the instance is in
> > > RUNNING
> > > > > > > state,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > KIP-441
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > proposes to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > use "probing rebalances" to report
> task
> > > > lag.
> > > > > > > Hence,
> > > > > > > > > > >> during
> > > > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> window
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > between when the instance reports a
> lag
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > assignor
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> makes a
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > decision
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > about it, the instance should remain
> in
> > > > > > > REBALANCING
> > > > > > > > > > >> state,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> right?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > If
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > so,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > then this should prevent the race
> > > > condition.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > > not,
> > > > > > > > > > >> then we
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> do
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> indeed
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > need
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > to do something about it.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 5. Good idea. I think that today, you
> > can
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> consumer
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > lag,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > which
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > is a poor substitute. I'll add some
> > > metrics
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks again for the comments!
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > -John
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:27 PM
> Guozhang
> > > > Wang
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Hello Sophie,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I left
> > > some
> > > > > > > comments
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> wiki
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > and I
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > think I'm still not very clear on a
> > > > couple
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > those:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 1. With this proposal, does that
> mean
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> num.standby.replicas
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > ==
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 0, we
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > may sometimes still have some
> standby
> > > > tasks
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> violate
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > config?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 2. I think I understand the
> rationale
> > > to
> > > > > > > consider
> > > > > > > > > > lags
> > > > > > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> below
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > specified threshold to be equal,
> > rather
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> 5000
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > better than 5001 -- we do not want
> to
> > > > > > > > > "over-optimize"
> > > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> potentially
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > falls
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > into endless rebalances back and
> > forth.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > But I'm not clear about the
> rationale
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > second
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> parameter of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > constrainedBalancedAssignment(StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > balance_factor):
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Does that mean, e.g. with
> > > balance_factor
> > > > of
> > > > > > 3,
> > > > > > > we'd
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> consider two
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > assignments one resulting
> > > balance_factor
> > > > 0
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > >> > resulting
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3 to be equally optimized
> assignment
> > > and
> > > > > > > therefore
> > > > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > >> > "stop
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> early"?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > This
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > was not very convincing to me :P
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3. There are a couple of minor
> > comments
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > algorithm
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > left
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the wiki page since it needs to
> refer
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > exact
> > > > > > > > > > line
> > > > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > better
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > displayed there.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3.a Another wild thought about the
> > > > > threshold
> > > > > > > > > itself:
> > > > > > > > > > >> today
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > assignment
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > itself is memoryless, so we would
> not
> > > > know
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> reported
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLag`
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > itself
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > is increasing or decreasing even if
> > the
> > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> under
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > threshold. I wonder if it worthy to
> > > make
> > > > > it a
> > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> complicated to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > track
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > task lag trend at the assignor?
> > > > Practically
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> very
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > uncommon
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that stand-by tasks are not keeping
> > up
> > > > due
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > fact
> > > > > > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > other
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > active
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > tasks hosted on the same thread is
> > > > starving
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > standby
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> tasks.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 4. There's a potential race
> condition
> > > > risk
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > >> reporting
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLags`
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > subscription: right after reporting
> > it
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > leader,
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > cleanup
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > kicks in and deletes the state
> > > directory.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > task
> > > > > > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > assigned
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > to the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > host it would cause it to restore
> > from
> > > > > > > beginning
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> effectively
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > make the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > seemingly optimized assignment very
> > > > > > > sub-optimal.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > To be on the safer side we should
> > > > consider
> > > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > > > prune
> > > > > > > > > > >> > out
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > those
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that are "close to be cleaned up"
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > subscription,
> > > > > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > > > > >> > we
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> should
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > delay
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the cleanup right after we've
> > included
> > > > them
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> subscription
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > in
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > case
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > they are been selected as assigned
> > > tasks
> > > > by
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> assignor.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 5. This is a meta comment: I think
> it
> > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > helpful
> > > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> add
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > some
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > user
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > visibility on the standby tasks
> > lagging
> > > > as
> > > > > > > well,
> > > > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> metrics for
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > example.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Today it is hard for us to observe
> > how
> > > > far
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > >> current
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > compared to the active tasks and
> > > whether
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > lag
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> being
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > increasing or
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > decreasing. As a follow-up task,
> for
> > > > > example,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > rebalance
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > should
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > also
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > triggered if we realize that some
> > > standby
> > > > > > > task's
> > > > > > > > > lag
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > increasing
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > indefinitely means that it cannot
> > keep
> > > up
> > > > > > > (which is
> > > > > > > > > > >> > another
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> indicator
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > either you need to add more
> resources
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > num.standbys
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> or
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> your
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > are
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > still not balanced enough).
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:32 PM
> Sophie
> > > > > > > Blee-Goldman
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Hey all,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > I'd like to kick off discussion
> on
> > > > > KIP-441,
> > > > > > > aimed
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> long
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > restore
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > times
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > in Streams during which further
> > > active
> > > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > > >> and IQ
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> are
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > blocked.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Please give it a read and let us
> > know
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > thoughts
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Sophie
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- Guozhang
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams

Posted by Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.

Hello John,

What I was thinking is that for other hosts of non-logged store only tasks,
they will be ranked with a lag of "1" (as I tried to illustrate with
"StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates[task][1]
:= instance" in the previous email), so that the current host would be
ranked first, while others would be ranked equally second. So the scenario
would be:

1. For non-logged store only tasks, the current owner is ranked with lag
"0", all others ranked with lag "1".
2. For mixed non-logged and logged store tasks, the current owned is ranked
with lag "0", all others ranked by the summed lag of logged stores. And of
course, for those whose summed lag is below the threshold, they will be
ranked with lag "0" as well.

But I agree that the case 1) requires special handling logic indeed: you
need to first tell which tasks are non-logged store only tasks, and then
add a lag "1" for all other instances. Since non-logged store only tasks
are not very common so far I think I agree that it may not worth the
special handling effort anyways, and if people complain about the
non-stickiness we can always come back and revisit this policy anyways, so
I'm fine with the current proposal as-is as well.

Just made another pass on the wiki page and it LGTM to me now, I'm +1 on
the KIP.


Guozhang




On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:19 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:

> I see; thanks for the clarification, Guozhang.
>
> If the prior owner of a non-logged, stateful task always reports 0, and all
> other instances report nothing, then it seems like we need a special case
> in the assignor to handle assigning these. I.e., the strategy of creating
> "movement" standbys and waiting for them to be equally caught up to the
> leader before moving the task with zero downtime doesn't work. Since no
> standby tasks are possible for non-logged tasks, the other instances would
> never be able to "catch up", and the algorithm would be doomed to just
> continue pinning the task to its current instance, and would potentially
> never be able to balance the cluster.
>
> Unless, of course, we put in a special case that says to keep it assigned
> for a while and then move it.
>
> But in this case, how do we decide when to move it; it seems like any time
> is as good as any other. And if this is the case, then we might as well
> just move it right away, which is what the KIP currently proposes.
>
> Also, it seems like this creates an asymmetry with the handling of
> non-logged stores in mixed logged/non-logged tasks (case (1) above). In
> that case, we agree that the algorithm will make assignments without regard
> to the non-logged stores at all, and would freely move the task between two
> instances that are "equally" caught up on the logged stores. But if a task
> contains only non-logged stores, it sounds like we would not have this
> freedom of movement, but would just keep giving it back to the instance
> that previously owned it?
>
> Regarding the latter comment, thanks for pointing out my oversight. I've
> added the section "Iterative Balancing Assignments" to define this
> behavior:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-IterativeBalancingAssignments
>  .
>
> Thanks!
> -John
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 5:58 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > I think I may mis-communicate my ideas a bit, what I meant is simply for
> > case 1), let the active tasks reporting a lag of 0 instead of not
> reporting
> > any lags at all; in addition, for other hosts not hosting this tasks, and
> > hence we do not know the offset lag at all we set the
> > "StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates[task][1]
> > := instance" just to make sure the current host is ranked the first while
> > all others are ranked equally after it. In this case we would still favor
> > stickiness for not moving such tasks out of its current host unless it
> > violates balance, in which case we are free to move it to any other
> hosts.
> > Does that make sense?
> >
> > Also I just realized that in the update wiki page the algorithm section
> of
> > iteratively assigning / moving tasks based on
> > StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates until convergence was missing (it was
> there
> > in the previous version), could you add it back?
> >
> > Guozhang
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:59 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the reply, Guozhang,
> > >
> > > I'll start by re-stating your cases, just to make sure we're on the
> same
> > > page...
> > >
> > > 1) The task is stateful, and all its stores are non-logged. For this
> case
> > > under the proposal, we would not have any standbys and the active
> version
> > > would actually not report any lag at all (not a lag of 0). Thus, all
> > > instances would be considered equal when it comes to assignment,
> although
> > > the assignment logic would know that the task is "heavy" because it has
> > > those non-logged stores and factor that in to the overall cluster
> > balance.
> > >
> > > 2) The task is stateful and maybe has one logged and one non-logged
> > store.
> > > As you say, in this case, the non-logged store would not contribute at
> > all
> > > to anyone's reported lag. The active task would report a lag of 0, and
> > the
> > > standbys would report their lag on the logged store. The assignment
> logic
> > > would take these reported lags into account.
> > >
> > > It sounds like there might be some dissonance on point (1). It sounds
> > like
> > > you're saying we should try to assign non-logged stateful tasks back to
> > an
> > > instance that has previously hosted it, or maybe we should assign it
> back
> > > to the most recent instance that hosted it, and then only reassign it
> if
> > > the movement would affect balance. I guess I'm not opposed to this,
> but I
> > > also don't really see the advantage. The fact is that we'd still wind
> up
> > > migrating it much of the time, so no one could depend on it not getting
> > > migrated, and at the same time we're paying a significant complexity
> cost
> > > in the assignor to support this case. Plus, we need to encode the
> > previous
> > > owner of the task somehow in the wire protocol, which means we pay a
> > > payload-size penalty to support it as well.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, we should make our assignment as stable as possible
> in
> > > the implementation to avoid pointless "swapping" of logged and
> non-logged
> > > stateful tasks, as well as stateless tasks when it doesn't change the
> > > balance at all to do so. It seems like this should accomplish the same
> > > spiritual goal with no special cases.
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > > -John
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:26 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello John,
> > > >
> > > > Your reasoning about non-logged state store looks good to me. But I
> > think
> > > > it worth considering two cases differently: 1) a task's all state
> > stores
> > > > are non-logged, 2) a task has non-logged state store but also have
> > other
> > > > logged state store.
> > > >
> > > > For 1), we should not have any standbys for such tasks at all, but it
> > is
> > > > not the same as a stateless task, because the only active task could
> > > report
> > > > a lag of "0" while all others should logically report the lag as
> > infinity
> > > > (of course, they would not encode such value).
> > > >
> > > > For 2), it is sort of the same to a normal case: active task
> reporting
> > a
> > > > lag of 0 while standby task reporting a lag summing all other logged
> > > state
> > > > stores, meaning that the non-logged state store does not matter in
> our
> > > > assignment semantics.
> > > >
> > > > The rationale I had is to effectively favor stickiness for those
> tasks
> > in
> > > > case 1) than arbitrarily reassign them even though it is true that
> for
> > a
> > > > non-logged store there's no durability and hence restoration
> guarantees
> > > > anyways from Streams. Then algorithmically we may consider assigning
> > > tasks
> > > > with descending order of the number of instances reporting lags for
> it,
> > > > then for such tasks there's always one candidate reporting a lag of
> 0,
> > > and
> > > > assigning them to any instance does not actually change the cumulated
> > > total
> > > > lag either. At that time we can decide "if it is still within load
> > > balance
> > > > factor, then let's respect stickiness, otherwise it's free to move".
> > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Guozhang
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey Bruno,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for taking another look. Some quick responses:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) It just means the number of offsets in the topic. E.g., the LSO
> is
> > > > 100,
> > > > > but the first offset is 40 due to retention, so there are 60
> offsets
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > topic. Further, the lag on that topic would be considered to be 60
> > for
> > > > any
> > > > > task that hadn't previously done any work on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) This is undecidable in general. I.e., there's no way we can know
> > > > whether
> > > > > the store is remote or not, and hence whether we can freely assign
> it
> > > to
> > > > > another instance, or whether we have to keep it on the same
> instance.
> > > > > However, there are a couple of reasons to go ahead and assume we
> have
> > > the
> > > > > freedom to move such tasks.
> > > > > * We know that nothing can prevent the loss of an instance in a
> > cluster
> > > > > (I.e., this is true of all cloud environments, as well as any
> managed
> > > > > virtualized cluster like mesos or kubernetes), so any Streams
> program
> > > > that
> > > > > makes use of non-remote, non-logged state is doomed to lose its
> state
> > > > when
> > > > > it loses an instance.
> > > > > * If we take on a restriction that we cannot move such state
> between
> > > > > instances, we'd become overconstrained very quickly. Effectively,
> if
> > > you
> > > > > made use of non-logged stores, and we didn't assume freedom of
> > > movement,
> > > > > then we couldn't make use of any new instances in your cluster.
> > > > > * On the other hand, if we optimistically assume we can't move
> state,
> > > but
> > > > > only reassign it when we lose an instance, then we're supporting
> > > > > non-deterministic logic, because the program would produce
> different
> > > > > results, depending on whether you lost a node during the execution
> or
> > > > not.
> > > > > 2b) That last point goes along with your side note. I'm not sure if
> > we
> > > > > should bother dropping such state on every reassignment, though. It
> > > seems
> > > > > to be undefined territory enough that we can just do the simplest
> > thing
> > > > and
> > > > > assume people have made their own (external) provisions for
> > durability.
> > > > > I.e., when we say "non-logged", we mean that it doesn't make use of
> > > _our_
> > > > > durability mechanism. I'm arguing that the only sane assumption is
> > that
> > > > > such folks have opted to use their own durability measures, and we
> > > should
> > > > > just assume it works with no special considerations in the
> assignment
> > > > > algorithm.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) Good catch! I've fixed it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks again!
> > > > > -John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:09 AM Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) What do you mean with "full set of offsets in the topic"? Is
> > this
> > > > > > the sum of all offsets of the changelog partitions of the task?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) I am not sure whether non-logged stateful tasks should be
> > > > > > effectively treated as stateless tasks during assignment. First
> we
> > > > > > need to decide whether a non-logged stateful task should
> preferably
> > > be
> > > > > > assigned to the same instance on which it just run in order to
> > > > > > continue to use its state or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) In the example, you define stand-by tasks {S1, S2, ...} but
> > never
> > > > > > use them, because below you use a dedicated row for stand-by
> tasks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a side note to 2) since it is not directly related to this
> KIP:
> > We
> > > > > > should decide if we want to avoid the possible non-determinism
> > > > > > introduced by non-logged stores or not. That is, if an instance
> > hosts
> > > > > > a task with non-logged stores then we can have two cases after
> the
> > > > > > next rebalance: a) the task stays on the same instance and
> > continues
> > > > > > to use the same state store as used so far or b) the task is
> > assigned
> > > > > > to another instance and it starts an empty state store. The
> > produced
> > > > > > results for these two cases might differ. To avoid the
> > > nondeterminism,
> > > > > > non-logged state stores would need to be wiped out before
> > assignment.
> > > > > > Then the question arises, how the removal of non-logged state
> > stores
> > > > > > before assignment would affect backward-compatibility.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:40 PM John Roesler <john@confluent.io
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My impression from your previous email is that inside the
> > > algorithm
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > are "filling" them to instances some deterministic logic would
> be
> > > > used
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > avoid the above case, is that correct?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, that was my plan, but I didn't formalize it. There was a
> > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > that the assignment algorithm must not produce a new assignment
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > > current assignment is already balanced, so at the least, any
> > > > thrashing
> > > > > > > would be restricted to the "balancing" phase while tasks are
> > moving
> > > > > > around
> > > > > > > the cluster.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyway, I think it would be good to say that we'll "try to"
> > produce
> > > > > > stable
> > > > > > > assignments, so I've added a "should" clause to the assignment
> > > spec:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-AssignmentAlgorithm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For example, we would sort the stateless tasks and available
> > > > instances
> > > > > > > before assigning them, so that the stateless task assignment
> > would
> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > stay stable between assignments, modulo the compute capacity of
> > the
> > > > > > > instances changing a little as active stateful tasks get
> assigned
> > > in
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > balanced ways.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > -John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:55 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello John,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That sounds reasonable. Just double checked the code that
> with
> > > > > logging
> > > > > > > > disabled the corresponding checkpoint file would not contain
> > any
> > > > > > values,
> > > > > > > > just like a stateless task. So I think treating them
> logically
> > > the
> > > > > > same is
> > > > > > > > fine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM John Roesler <
> > john@confluent.io
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi again, Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > While writing up the section on stateless tasks (
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statelesstasks
> > > > > > > > > ),
> > > > > > > > > I reconsidered whether stateful, but non-logged, tasks
> should
> > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > report a lag of zero, versus not reporting any lag. By the
> > > > > > definition of
> > > > > > > > > the "StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates" function, the leader
> > > would
> > > > > > compute
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > lag of zero for these tasks anyway.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Therefore, I think the same reasoning that I supplied you
> for
> > > > > > stateless
> > > > > > > > > tasks applies, since the member and leader will agree on a
> > lag
> > > of
> > > > > > zero
> > > > > > > > > anyway, we can avoid adding them to the "Task Lags" map,
> and
> > > save
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > bytes in the JoinGroup request. This would be especially
> > > > beneficial
> > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > > application that uses remote stores for _all_ its state
> > stores,
> > > > it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > have an extremely lightweight JoinGroup request, with no
> task
> > > > lags
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > all.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > -John
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:17 PM John Roesler <
> > > john@confluent.io>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Guozhang.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (Side note: I noticed on another pass over the discussion
> > > that
> > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > missed
> > > > > > > > > > addressing your comment about the potential race
> condition
> > > > > between
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > > cleanup and lag-based assignment. I've added a solution
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > > proposal:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Racebetweenassignmentandstatecleanup
> > > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In the JoinGroup (SubscriptionInfo) metadata, stateless
> > tasks
> > > > are
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > represented at all. This should save us some bytes in the
> > > > request
> > > > > > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > > > > > If we treated them like non-logged stateful tasks and
> > > reported
> > > > a
> > > > > > lag of
> > > > > > > > > 0,
> > > > > > > > > > the only difference is that the assignor would be able to
> > > tell
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > members previously hosted that stateless task.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to make a simplifying assumption that stateless
> > > tasks
> > > > > can
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > freely reassigned with no regard to stickiness at all,
> > > without
> > > > > > > > impacting
> > > > > > > > > > performance. This is almost true. In fact, while
> assigned a
> > > > > > stateless
> > > > > > > > > task,
> > > > > > > > > > a member fetches batches of records from the broker, so
> if
> > we
> > > > > move
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > stateless task assignment, this buffered input is wasted
> > and
> > > > just
> > > > > > gets
> > > > > > > > > > dropped.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > However, we won't be moving the stateless tasks around
> all
> > > the
> > > > > time
> > > > > > > > (just
> > > > > > > > > > during rebalances), and we have the requirement that the
> > > > > assigment
> > > > > > > > > > algorithm must stabilize to guard against perpetually
> > > > shuffling a
> > > > > > > > > stateless
> > > > > > > > > > task from one node to another. So, my hope is that this
> > small
> > > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > > > > inefficiency would not be a performance-dominating
> factor.
> > In
> > > > > > exchange,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > gain the opportunity for the assignment algorithm to use
> > the
> > > > > > stateless
> > > > > > > > > > tasks as "filler" during unbalanced assignments. For
> > example,
> > > > if
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > > node that is just warming up with several standby tasks,
> > > maybe
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > assignment can give more stateless tasks to that node to
> > > > balance
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > computational load across the cluster.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's worth noting that such an assignment would still not
> > be
> > > > > > considered
> > > > > > > > > > "balanced", so the ultimately balanced final state of the
> > > > > > assignment
> > > > > > > > > (after
> > > > > > > > > > task movements) would still have the desired property
> that
> > > each
> > > > > > > > stateful
> > > > > > > > > > and stateless task is evenly spread across the cluster.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Does that seem reasonable?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > -John
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:22 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Hello John,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> I've made another pass on the wiki page again, overall
> > LGTM.
> > > > One
> > > > > > meta
> > > > > > > > > >> comment about the "stateless" tasks: how do we represent
> > > them
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> metadata? Are they just treated as stateful tasks with
> > > logging
> > > > > > > > disabled,
> > > > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > > > >> are specially handled? It is not very clear in the
> > > > description.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:43 AM John Roesler <
> > > > john@confluent.io
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > I have also specifically called out that the
> assignment
> > > must
> > > > > > achieve
> > > > > > > > > >> both
> > > > > > > > > >> > "instance" and "task" balance:
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Defining%22balance%22
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > I've also addressed the problem of state stores with
> > > logging
> > > > > > > > disabled:
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statewithloggingdisabled
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > I believe this addresses all the concerns that have
> been
> > > > > raised
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > date.
> > > > > > > > > >> > Apologies if I've overlooked one of your concerns.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Please give the KIP another read and let me know of
> any
> > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > >> thoughts!
> > > > > > > > > >> > Hopefully, we can start the voting on this KIP by the
> > end
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > week.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > -John
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:16 PM John Roesler <
> > > > > john@confluent.io
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > In response to Bruno's concern #2, I've also added
> > that
> > > > > > section to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > "Rejected Alternatives" section.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Additionally, after reviewing some other assignment
> > > > papers,
> > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > >> > developed
> > > > > > > > > >> > > the concern that specifying which "phases" the
> > > assignment
> > > > > > > > algorithm
> > > > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > > > >> > > have, or indeed the logic of it at all, might be a
> > > mistake
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> > > over-constrains our ability to write an optimal
> > > algorithm.
> > > > > > > > > Therefore,
> > > > > > > > > >> > I've
> > > > > > > > > >> > > also refactored the KIP to just describe the
> protocol,
> > > and
> > > > > > specify
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > requirements for the assignment algorithm, but not
> its
> > > > exact
> > > > > > > > > behavior
> > > > > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > > > >> > > all.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > -John
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:13 PM John Roesler <
> > > > > > john@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >> Hi All,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >> Thanks for the discussion. I've been considering
> the
> > > idea
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > giving
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >> "catching up" tasks a different name/role. I was in
> > > favor
> > > > > > > > > initially,
> > > > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > > > >> > >> after working though some details, I think it
> causes
> > > some
> > > > > > > > problems,
> > > > > > > > > >> > which
> > > > > > > > > >> > >> I've written up in the "rejected alternatives" part
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > KIP:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Addinganewkindoftask(%22moving%22,%22recovering%22,%22learner%22)fortaskmovements
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >> Please give it a read and let me know what you
> think.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >> -John
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:57 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> I think I agree with you Sophie. My gut feeling is
> > > that
> > > > 1)
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> the major concern in assignor's algorithm for
> > standby
> > > > > tasks
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >> > catching
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> up, but rather be tackled in different modules,
> and
> > > 2) a
> > > > > > lot of
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> optimization can be down at the stream thread
> > itself,
> > > > like
> > > > > > > > > dedicated
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> threading and larger batching, or even complicated
> > > > > > scheduling
> > > > > > > > > >> > mechanisms
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> between running, restoring and standby tasks. In
> > > > anyways,
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >> > can
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> take this out of the scope of KIP-441 for now.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:48 PM Sophie
> Blee-Goldman <
> > > > > > > > > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > we may have other ways to not starving the
> > standby
> > > > > > tasks,
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> example, by
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or
> even
> > > > > > consider
> > > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > *higher> priority for standby than active* so
> that
> > > we
> > > > > > always
> > > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> caught
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > up standby
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > first, then process active
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > This is an interesting idea, but seems likely to
> > get
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > original idea of this KIP
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > -- if we always process standby tasks first,
> then
> > if
> > > > we
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > >> assigned
> > > > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby task we
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > will have to wait for it to catch up completely
> > > before
> > > > > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > >> any
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > active tasks! That's
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > even worse than the situation this KIP is trying
> > to
> > > > help
> > > > > > with,
> > > > > > > > > >> since
> > > > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby task has to
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > restore from 0 (whereas an active task at least
> > can
> > > > take
> > > > > > over
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> wherever
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > the standby was).
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > During restoration -- while there exist any
> > > restoring
> > > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > > -- I
> > > > > > > > > >> > think
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> it's
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > reasonable to de-prioritize the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby tasks and just process restoring and
> > active
> > > > > tasks
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > progress. But we should
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > let them catch up afterwards somehow -- maybe we
> > can
> > > > > apply
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > >> kind
> > > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > heuristic, like "if we haven't
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > processed standbys for X iterations, or Y
> > > > milliseconds,
> > > > > > do so
> > > > > > > > > >> now."
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > Actually, it might even be beneficial to avoid
> > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > >> standbys a
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> record
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > or two at a time and instead
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > wait for a large enough batch to build up for
> the
> > > > > RocksDB
> > > > > > > > > >> > bulk-loading
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > benefits.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > I think the "use dedicated threads for standby"
> is
> > > the
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > >> promising
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> end
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > goal, especially since
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > if we split restoration into "restoring tasks"
> > then
> > > > > > active and
> > > > > > > > > >> > standbys
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > share almost nothing. But
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > that seems like follow-up work to the current
> KIP
> > :)
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:31 PM Sophie
> > Blee-Goldman <
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > Stateful tasks with logging disabled seem to
> be
> > an
> > > > > > > > interesting
> > > > > > > > > >> edge
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> case.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > On the one hand,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > for balancing purposes they should be
> considered
> > > > > > stateful
> > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > Guozhang pointed out
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > they are still "heavy" in IO costs. But for
> > > > "catching
> > > > > > up"
> > > > > > > > > >> purposes,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> ie
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > when allocating standby
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks that will become active tasks, they
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > > > considered
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> stateless
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > as there is so
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > meaningful sense of their lag. We should never
> > > > > allocate
> > > > > > > > > standby
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> tasks for
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > them during the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > first rebalance, but should ensure they are
> > evenly
> > > > > > > > distributed
> > > > > > > > > >> > across
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > instances. Maybe we
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > should split these into a third category --
> > after
> > > we
> > > > > > assign
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> stateful
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks with logging, we
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > then distribute the set of logging-disabled
> > > stateful
> > > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > improve
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > balance, before lastly
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > distributing stateless tasks?
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > This actually leads into what I was just
> > thinking,
> > > > > > which is
> > > > > > > > > >> that we
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > really
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > should distinguish the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > "catch-up" standbys from normal standbys as
> well
> > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> distinguishing
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > actively processing tasks
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > from active tasks that are still in the
> restore
> > > > phase.
> > > > > > It's
> > > > > > > > > >> > somewhat
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > awkward that today, some
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > active tasks just start processing immediately
> > > while
> > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > >> behave
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> more
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > like standby than active
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks for some time, before switching to real
> > > > active.
> > > > > > They
> > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > >> > use
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > restoreConsumer, then
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > later only the "normal" consumer.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > However, this restore period is still distinct
> > > from
> > > > > > normal
> > > > > > > > > >> standbys
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> in a
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > lot of ways -- the code path
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > for restoring is different than for updating
> > > > standbys,
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> example
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> in how
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > long we block on #poll.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > So in addition to giving them their own name
> --
> > > > let's
> > > > > go
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> restoring
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > task for now -- they really
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > do seem to deserve being their own distinct
> > task.
> > > We
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > >> optimize
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> them
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > for
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > efficient conversion
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > to active tasks since we know that's what they
> > > will
> > > > > be.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > This resolves some of the awkwardness of
> dealing
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> special
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> case
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > mentioned above: we
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > find a balanced assignment of stateful and
> > > stateless
> > > > > > tasks,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> create
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > restoring tasks as needed.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > If logging is disabled, no restoring task is
> > > > created.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:44 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > > > >> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> Regarding 3) above: I think for active task
> > they
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> considered
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful since the processor would still pay
> IO
> > > > cost
> > > > > > > > > accessing
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > store,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> but they would not have standby tasks?
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:49 AM Bruno Cadonna
> <
> > > > > > > > > >> bruno@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Thank you for the KIP!
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Some questions/comments:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 1. I am wondering if the "stand-by" tasks
> > that
> > > > > catch
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> before
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the active task is switched deserve its own
> > > name
> > > > in
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> maybe
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in the code. We have already stated that
> they
> > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > true
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> stand-by
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks, they are not configured through
> > > > > > > > > >> `num.standby.replicas`,
> > > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > maybe they have also other properties that
> > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > >> from
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> true
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > stand-by tasks of which we are not aware
> yet.
> > > For
> > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > >> they
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> may be
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > prioritized differently than other tasks.
> > > > > > Furthermore,
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> name
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > "stand-by" does not really fit with the
> > planned
> > > > > > > > > >> functionality of
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> those
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks. In the following, I will call them
> > false
> > > > > > stand-by
> > > > > > > > > >> tasks.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 2. Did you consider to trigger the probing
> > > > > > rebalances not
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> regular
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > time intervals but when the false stand-by
> > > tasks
> > > > > > reach an
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> acceptable
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > lag? If you did consider, could you add a
> > > > paragraph
> > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> rejected
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > this idea to the "Rejected Alternatives"
> > > section.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 3. Are tasks that solely contain stores
> with
> > > > > disabled
> > > > > > > > > logging
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > classified as stateful or stateless in the
> > > > > > algorithm? I
> > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> guess
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > stateless, although if possible they should
> > be
> > > > > > assigned
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> same
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > instance they had run before the rebalance.
> > As
> > > > far
> > > > > > as I
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > >> see
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > special case is not handled in the
> algorithm.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Best,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Bruno
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:24 AM Guozhang
> Wang
> > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 1. Sounds good, just wanted to clarify;
> and
> > > it
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> documenting
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> it
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > so
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > that users would not be surprised when
> > > > monitoring
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> footprint.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 2. Hmm I see... I think the trade-off can
> > be
> > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > >> "how
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> much
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance would bother you to be willing
> to
> > > pay
> > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> rebalance,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> along
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > with potentially more restoration lag",
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> definition
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > rebalance_factor can be considered as a
> > rough
> > > > > > > > measurement
> > > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance. Of course one can argue that a
> > > finer
> > > > > > grained
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> measurement
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> could
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > be "resource footprint" like CPU /
> storage
> > of
> > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> like we
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> have
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > Kafka broker auto balancing tools, but
> I'd
> > > > prefer
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> that as
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> part
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the library but more as an operational
> tool
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > >> On
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> other
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > hand, I've seen stateful and stateless
> > tasks
> > > > > having
> > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> different
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> load,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > and sometimes the only bottleneck of a
> > > Streams
> > > > > app
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > >> one
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > sub-topology and whoever gets tasks of
> that
> > > > > > > > sub-topology
> > > > > > > > > >> > become
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> hotspot
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > (and that's why our algorithm tries to
> > > balance
> > > > > per
> > > > > > > > > >> > sub-topology
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> as
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> well),
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > so maybe we can just consider stateful
> > tasks
> > > > when
> > > > > > > > > >> calculating
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> factor
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > as a very brute force heuristic?
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 3.a. Thinking about this a bit more,
> maybe
> > > it's
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >> try
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> tackle
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > an
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > unseen enemy just yet, and observe if it
> > > really
> > > > > > emerges
> > > > > > > > > >> later,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > by
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > then
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > we may have other ways to not starving
> the
> > > > > standby
> > > > > > > > tasks,
> > > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> example, by
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks
> or
> > > > even
> > > > > > > > consider
> > > > > > > > > >> > having
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> higher
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > priority for standby than active so that
> we
> > > > > always
> > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> caught up
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > standby
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > first, then process active; and if
> active's
> > > > > lagging
> > > > > > > > > >> compared
> > > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > log-end-offset is increasing then we
> should
> > > > > > increase
> > > > > > > > > >> capacity,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> etc
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> etc.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 4. Actually with KIP-429 this may not be
> > the
> > > > > case:
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> call
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > onPartitionsRevoked prior to rebalance
> any
> > > more
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> transit
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > state
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > to PARTITIONS_REVOKED, and hence not
> cause
> > > the
> > > > > > state of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> instance
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > REBALANCING. In other words, even if a
> > > instance
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> undergoing
> > > > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> rebalance
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > it's state may still be RUNNING and it
> may
> > > > still
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> processing
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> records at
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the same time.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:14 PM John
> > Roesler
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > john@confluent.io
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks for the review!
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 1. Yes, even with `num.standby.replicas
> > :=
> > > > 0`,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > >> still
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > temporarily
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allocate standby tasks to accomplish a
> > > > > > no-downtime
> > > > > > > > task
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> migration.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Although, I'd argue that this doesn't
> > > really
> > > > > > violate
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> config,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > as
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > task isn't a true hot standby. As soon
> as
> > > it
> > > > > > catches
> > > > > > > > > up,
> > > > > > > > > >> > we'll
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > rebalance
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > again, that task will become active,
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > original
> > > > > > > > > >> > instance
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > that
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > hosted
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the active task will no longer have the
> > > task
> > > > > > assigned
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > >> > all.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> Once
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > stateDirCleaner kicks in, we'll free
> the
> > > disk
> > > > > > space
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > >> it,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > return to
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the steady-state of having just one
> copy
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > task
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > We can of course do without this, but I
> > > feel
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> proposal
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > is
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > operationally preferable, since it
> > doesn't
> > > > make
> > > > > > > > > >> configuring
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > hot-standbys a
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > pre-requisite for fast rebalances.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 2. Yes, I think your interpretation is
> > what
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > > intended.
> > > > > > > > > >> The
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > default
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor would be 1, as it is
> > > > implicitly
> > > > > > today.
> > > > > > > > > >> What
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> does is
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allows operators to trade off less
> > balanced
> > > > > > > > assignments
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> against
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> fewer
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > rebalances. If you have lots of space
> > > > capacity
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> instances,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> this
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > may
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be a perfectly fine tradeoff, and you
> may
> > > > > prefer
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >> Streams
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> not
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > bother
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > streaming GBs of data from the broker
> in
> > > > > pursuit
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >> perfect
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > balance.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Not
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > married to this configuration, though.
> It
> > > was
> > > > > > > > inspired
> > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> related
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > work
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > research we did.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3. I'll take a look
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3a. I think this is a good idea. I'd
> > > classify
> > > > > it
> > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> grey
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > failure
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > detection. It may make more sense to
> > tackle
> > > > > grey
> > > > > > > > > >> failures as
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> part
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > heartbeat protocol (as I POCed here:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/7096/files
> > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 4. Good catch! I didn't think about
> that
> > > > > before.
> > > > > > > > > Looking
> > > > > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > now,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > though,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > I wonder if we're actually protected
> > > already.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> stateDirCleaner
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > only executes if the instance is in
> > RUNNING
> > > > > > state,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > KIP-441
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > proposes to
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > use "probing rebalances" to report task
> > > lag.
> > > > > > Hence,
> > > > > > > > > >> during
> > > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> window
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > between when the instance reports a lag
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > assignor
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> makes a
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > decision
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > about it, the instance should remain in
> > > > > > REBALANCING
> > > > > > > > > >> state,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> right?
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > If
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > so,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > then this should prevent the race
> > > condition.
> > > > If
> > > > > > not,
> > > > > > > > > >> then we
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> do
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> indeed
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > need
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > to do something about it.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 5. Good idea. I think that today, you
> can
> > > > only
> > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> consumer
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > lag,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > which
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > is a poor substitute. I'll add some
> > metrics
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> proposal.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks again for the comments!
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > -John
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:27 PM Guozhang
> > > Wang
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Hello Sophie,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I left
> > some
> > > > > > comments
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> wiki
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > and I
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > think I'm still not very clear on a
> > > couple
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > those:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 1. With this proposal, does that mean
> > > with
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> num.standby.replicas
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > ==
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 0, we
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > may sometimes still have some standby
> > > tasks
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> violate
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > config?
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 2. I think I understand the rationale
> > to
> > > > > > consider
> > > > > > > > > lags
> > > > > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> below
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > specified threshold to be equal,
> rather
> > > > than
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> 5000
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > is
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > better than 5001 -- we do not want to
> > > > > > > > "over-optimize"
> > > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> potentially
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > falls
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > into endless rebalances back and
> forth.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > But I'm not clear about the rationale
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > second
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> parameter of
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > constrainedBalancedAssignment(StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > balance_factor):
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Does that mean, e.g. with
> > balance_factor
> > > of
> > > > > 3,
> > > > > > we'd
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> consider two
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > assignments one resulting
> > balance_factor
> > > 0
> > > > > and
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > >> > resulting
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3 to be equally optimized assignment
> > and
> > > > > > therefore
> > > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > >> > "stop
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> early"?
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > This
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > was not very convincing to me :P
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3. There are a couple of minor
> comments
> > > > about
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > algorithm
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > left
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the wiki page since it needs to refer
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > exact
> > > > > > > > > line
> > > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > better
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > displayed there.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3.a Another wild thought about the
> > > > threshold
> > > > > > > > itself:
> > > > > > > > > >> today
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > assignment
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > itself is memoryless, so we would not
> > > know
> > > > if
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> reported
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLag`
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > itself
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > is increasing or decreasing even if
> the
> > > > > current
> > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> under
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > threshold. I wonder if it worthy to
> > make
> > > > it a
> > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> complicated to
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > track
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > task lag trend at the assignor?
> > > Practically
> > > > > it
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> very
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > uncommon
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that stand-by tasks are not keeping
> up
> > > due
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > fact
> > > > > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > other
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > active
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > tasks hosted on the same thread is
> > > starving
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > standby
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> tasks.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 4. There's a potential race condition
> > > risk
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > >> reporting
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLags`
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > subscription: right after reporting
> it
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > leader,
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > cleanup
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > kicks in and deletes the state
> > directory.
> > > > If
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > task
> > > > > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > assigned
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > to the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > host it would cause it to restore
> from
> > > > > > beginning
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> effectively
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > make the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > seemingly optimized assignment very
> > > > > > sub-optimal.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > To be on the safer side we should
> > > consider
> > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > > prune
> > > > > > > > > >> > out
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > those
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that are "close to be cleaned up" in
> > the
> > > > > > > > > subscription,
> > > > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > > > >> > we
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> should
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > delay
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the cleanup right after we've
> included
> > > them
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> subscription
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > in
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > case
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > they are been selected as assigned
> > tasks
> > > by
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> assignor.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 5. This is a meta comment: I think it
> > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > helpful
> > > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> add
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > some
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > user
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > visibility on the standby tasks
> lagging
> > > as
> > > > > > well,
> > > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> metrics for
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > example.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Today it is hard for us to observe
> how
> > > far
> > > > > are
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > >> current
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > compared to the active tasks and
> > whether
> > > > that
> > > > > > lag
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> being
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > increasing or
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > decreasing. As a follow-up task, for
> > > > example,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > rebalance
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > should
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > also
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > triggered if we realize that some
> > standby
> > > > > > task's
> > > > > > > > lag
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > increasing
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > indefinitely means that it cannot
> keep
> > up
> > > > > > (which is
> > > > > > > > > >> > another
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> indicator
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > either you need to add more resources
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >> > num.standbys
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> or
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> your
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > are
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > still not balanced enough).
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:32 PM Sophie
> > > > > > Blee-Goldman
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Hey all,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > I'd like to kick off discussion on
> > > > KIP-441,
> > > > > > aimed
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> long
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > restore
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > times
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > in Streams during which further
> > active
> > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > >> and IQ
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> are
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > blocked.
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Please give it a read and let us
> know
> > > > your
> > > > > > > > thoughts
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Sophie
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > --
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> --
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> --
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -- Guozhang
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
> >
>


-- 
-- Guozhang

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams

Posted by John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>.

I see; thanks for the clarification, Guozhang.

If the prior owner of a non-logged, stateful task always reports 0, and all
other instances report nothing, then it seems like we need a special case
in the assignor to handle assigning these. I.e., the strategy of creating
"movement" standbys and waiting for them to be equally caught up to the
leader before moving the task with zero downtime doesn't work. Since no
standby tasks are possible for non-logged tasks, the other instances would
never be able to "catch up", and the algorithm would be doomed to just
continue pinning the task to its current instance, and would potentially
never be able to balance the cluster.

Unless, of course, we put in a special case that says to keep it assigned
for a while and then move it.

But in this case, how do we decide when to move it; it seems like any time
is as good as any other. And if this is the case, then we might as well
just move it right away, which is what the KIP currently proposes.

Also, it seems like this creates an asymmetry with the handling of
non-logged stores in mixed logged/non-logged tasks (case (1) above). In
that case, we agree that the algorithm will make assignments without regard
to the non-logged stores at all, and would freely move the task between two
instances that are "equally" caught up on the logged stores. But if a task
contains only non-logged stores, it sounds like we would not have this
freedom of movement, but would just keep giving it back to the instance
that previously owned it?

Regarding the latter comment, thanks for pointing out my oversight. I've
added the section "Iterative Balancing Assignments" to define this
behavior:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-IterativeBalancingAssignments
 .

Thanks!
-John

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 5:58 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> I think I may mis-communicate my ideas a bit, what I meant is simply for
> case 1), let the active tasks reporting a lag of 0 instead of not reporting
> any lags at all; in addition, for other hosts not hosting this tasks, and
> hence we do not know the offset lag at all we set the
> "StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates[task][1]
> := instance" just to make sure the current host is ranked the first while
> all others are ranked equally after it. In this case we would still favor
> stickiness for not moving such tasks out of its current host unless it
> violates balance, in which case we are free to move it to any other hosts.
> Does that make sense?
>
> Also I just realized that in the update wiki page the algorithm section of
> iteratively assigning / moving tasks based on
> StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates until convergence was missing (it was there
> in the previous version), could you add it back?
>
> Guozhang
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:59 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reply, Guozhang,
> >
> > I'll start by re-stating your cases, just to make sure we're on the same
> > page...
> >
> > 1) The task is stateful, and all its stores are non-logged. For this case
> > under the proposal, we would not have any standbys and the active version
> > would actually not report any lag at all (not a lag of 0). Thus, all
> > instances would be considered equal when it comes to assignment, although
> > the assignment logic would know that the task is "heavy" because it has
> > those non-logged stores and factor that in to the overall cluster
> balance.
> >
> > 2) The task is stateful and maybe has one logged and one non-logged
> store.
> > As you say, in this case, the non-logged store would not contribute at
> all
> > to anyone's reported lag. The active task would report a lag of 0, and
> the
> > standbys would report their lag on the logged store. The assignment logic
> > would take these reported lags into account.
> >
> > It sounds like there might be some dissonance on point (1). It sounds
> like
> > you're saying we should try to assign non-logged stateful tasks back to
> an
> > instance that has previously hosted it, or maybe we should assign it back
> > to the most recent instance that hosted it, and then only reassign it if
> > the movement would affect balance. I guess I'm not opposed to this, but I
> > also don't really see the advantage. The fact is that we'd still wind up
> > migrating it much of the time, so no one could depend on it not getting
> > migrated, and at the same time we're paying a significant complexity cost
> > in the assignor to support this case. Plus, we need to encode the
> previous
> > owner of the task somehow in the wire protocol, which means we pay a
> > payload-size penalty to support it as well.
> >
> > On the other hand, we should make our assignment as stable as possible in
> > the implementation to avoid pointless "swapping" of logged and non-logged
> > stateful tasks, as well as stateless tasks when it doesn't change the
> > balance at all to do so. It seems like this should accomplish the same
> > spiritual goal with no special cases.
> >
> > WDYT?
> > -John
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:26 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello John,
> > >
> > > Your reasoning about non-logged state store looks good to me. But I
> think
> > > it worth considering two cases differently: 1) a task's all state
> stores
> > > are non-logged, 2) a task has non-logged state store but also have
> other
> > > logged state store.
> > >
> > > For 1), we should not have any standbys for such tasks at all, but it
> is
> > > not the same as a stateless task, because the only active task could
> > report
> > > a lag of "0" while all others should logically report the lag as
> infinity
> > > (of course, they would not encode such value).
> > >
> > > For 2), it is sort of the same to a normal case: active task reporting
> a
> > > lag of 0 while standby task reporting a lag summing all other logged
> > state
> > > stores, meaning that the non-logged state store does not matter in our
> > > assignment semantics.
> > >
> > > The rationale I had is to effectively favor stickiness for those tasks
> in
> > > case 1) than arbitrarily reassign them even though it is true that for
> a
> > > non-logged store there's no durability and hence restoration guarantees
> > > anyways from Streams. Then algorithmically we may consider assigning
> > tasks
> > > with descending order of the number of instances reporting lags for it,
> > > then for such tasks there's always one candidate reporting a lag of 0,
> > and
> > > assigning them to any instance does not actually change the cumulated
> > total
> > > lag either. At that time we can decide "if it is still within load
> > balance
> > > factor, then let's respect stickiness, otherwise it's free to move".
> > WDYT?
> > >
> > >
> > > Guozhang
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey Bruno,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for taking another look. Some quick responses:
> > > >
> > > > 1) It just means the number of offsets in the topic. E.g., the LSO is
> > > 100,
> > > > but the first offset is 40 due to retention, so there are 60 offsets
> in
> > > the
> > > > topic. Further, the lag on that topic would be considered to be 60
> for
> > > any
> > > > task that hadn't previously done any work on it.
> > > >
> > > > 2) This is undecidable in general. I.e., there's no way we can know
> > > whether
> > > > the store is remote or not, and hence whether we can freely assign it
> > to
> > > > another instance, or whether we have to keep it on the same instance.
> > > > However, there are a couple of reasons to go ahead and assume we have
> > the
> > > > freedom to move such tasks.
> > > > * We know that nothing can prevent the loss of an instance in a
> cluster
> > > > (I.e., this is true of all cloud environments, as well as any managed
> > > > virtualized cluster like mesos or kubernetes), so any Streams program
> > > that
> > > > makes use of non-remote, non-logged state is doomed to lose its state
> > > when
> > > > it loses an instance.
> > > > * If we take on a restriction that we cannot move such state between
> > > > instances, we'd become overconstrained very quickly. Effectively, if
> > you
> > > > made use of non-logged stores, and we didn't assume freedom of
> > movement,
> > > > then we couldn't make use of any new instances in your cluster.
> > > > * On the other hand, if we optimistically assume we can't move state,
> > but
> > > > only reassign it when we lose an instance, then we're supporting
> > > > non-deterministic logic, because the program would produce different
> > > > results, depending on whether you lost a node during the execution or
> > > not.
> > > > 2b) That last point goes along with your side note. I'm not sure if
> we
> > > > should bother dropping such state on every reassignment, though. It
> > seems
> > > > to be undefined territory enough that we can just do the simplest
> thing
> > > and
> > > > assume people have made their own (external) provisions for
> durability.
> > > > I.e., when we say "non-logged", we mean that it doesn't make use of
> > _our_
> > > > durability mechanism. I'm arguing that the only sane assumption is
> that
> > > > such folks have opted to use their own durability measures, and we
> > should
> > > > just assume it works with no special considerations in the assignment
> > > > algorithm.
> > > >
> > > > 3) Good catch! I've fixed it.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again!
> > > > -John
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:09 AM Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) What do you mean with "full set of offsets in the topic"? Is
> this
> > > > > the sum of all offsets of the changelog partitions of the task?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) I am not sure whether non-logged stateful tasks should be
> > > > > effectively treated as stateless tasks during assignment. First we
> > > > > need to decide whether a non-logged stateful task should preferably
> > be
> > > > > assigned to the same instance on which it just run in order to
> > > > > continue to use its state or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) In the example, you define stand-by tasks {S1, S2, ...} but
> never
> > > > > use them, because below you use a dedicated row for stand-by tasks.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a side note to 2) since it is not directly related to this KIP:
> We
> > > > > should decide if we want to avoid the possible non-determinism
> > > > > introduced by non-logged stores or not. That is, if an instance
> hosts
> > > > > a task with non-logged stores then we can have two cases after the
> > > > > next rebalance: a) the task stays on the same instance and
> continues
> > > > > to use the same state store as used so far or b) the task is
> assigned
> > > > > to another instance and it starts an empty state store. The
> produced
> > > > > results for these two cases might differ. To avoid the
> > nondeterminism,
> > > > > non-logged state stores would need to be wiped out before
> assignment.
> > > > > Then the question arises, how the removal of non-logged state
> stores
> > > > > before assignment would affect backward-compatibility.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Bruno
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:40 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > My impression from your previous email is that inside the
> > algorithm
> > > > > when
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > are "filling" them to instances some deterministic logic would be
> > > used
> > > > to
> > > > > > avoid the above case, is that correct?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that was my plan, but I didn't formalize it. There was a
> > > > requirement
> > > > > > that the assignment algorithm must not produce a new assignment
> if
> > > the
> > > > > > current assignment is already balanced, so at the least, any
> > > thrashing
> > > > > > would be restricted to the "balancing" phase while tasks are
> moving
> > > > > around
> > > > > > the cluster.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, I think it would be good to say that we'll "try to"
> produce
> > > > > stable
> > > > > > assignments, so I've added a "should" clause to the assignment
> > spec:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-AssignmentAlgorithm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example, we would sort the stateless tasks and available
> > > instances
> > > > > > before assigning them, so that the stateless task assignment
> would
> > > > mostly
> > > > > > stay stable between assignments, modulo the compute capacity of
> the
> > > > > > instances changing a little as active stateful tasks get assigned
> > in
> > > > more
> > > > > > balanced ways.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > -John
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:55 PM Guozhang Wang <
> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello John,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That sounds reasonable. Just double checked the code that with
> > > > logging
> > > > > > > disabled the corresponding checkpoint file would not contain
> any
> > > > > values,
> > > > > > > just like a stateless task. So I think treating them logically
> > the
> > > > > same is
> > > > > > > fine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM John Roesler <
> john@confluent.io
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi again, Guozhang,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > While writing up the section on stateless tasks (
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statelesstasks
> > > > > > > > ),
> > > > > > > > I reconsidered whether stateful, but non-logged, tasks should
> > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > report a lag of zero, versus not reporting any lag. By the
> > > > > definition of
> > > > > > > > the "StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates" function, the leader
> > would
> > > > > compute
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > lag of zero for these tasks anyway.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Therefore, I think the same reasoning that I supplied you for
> > > > > stateless
> > > > > > > > tasks applies, since the member and leader will agree on a
> lag
> > of
> > > > > zero
> > > > > > > > anyway, we can avoid adding them to the "Task Lags" map, and
> > save
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > bytes in the JoinGroup request. This would be especially
> > > beneficial
> > > > > in an
> > > > > > > > application that uses remote stores for _all_ its state
> stores,
> > > it
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > have an extremely lightweight JoinGroup request, with no task
> > > lags
> > > > at
> > > > > > > all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > -John
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:17 PM John Roesler <
> > john@confluent.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, Guozhang.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (Side note: I noticed on another pass over the discussion
> > that
> > > > I'd
> > > > > > > missed
> > > > > > > > > addressing your comment about the potential race condition
> > > > between
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > > cleanup and lag-based assignment. I've added a solution to
> > the
> > > > > > > proposal:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Racebetweenassignmentandstatecleanup
> > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In the JoinGroup (SubscriptionInfo) metadata, stateless
> tasks
> > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > represented at all. This should save us some bytes in the
> > > request
> > > > > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > > > > If we treated them like non-logged stateful tasks and
> > reported
> > > a
> > > > > lag of
> > > > > > > > 0,
> > > > > > > > > the only difference is that the assignor would be able to
> > tell
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > members previously hosted that stateless task.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to make a simplifying assumption that stateless
> > tasks
> > > > can
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > freely reassigned with no regard to stickiness at all,
> > without
> > > > > > > impacting
> > > > > > > > > performance. This is almost true. In fact, while assigned a
> > > > > stateless
> > > > > > > > task,
> > > > > > > > > a member fetches batches of records from the broker, so if
> we
> > > > move
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > stateless task assignment, this buffered input is wasted
> and
> > > just
> > > > > gets
> > > > > > > > > dropped.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, we won't be moving the stateless tasks around all
> > the
> > > > time
> > > > > > > (just
> > > > > > > > > during rebalances), and we have the requirement that the
> > > > assigment
> > > > > > > > > algorithm must stabilize to guard against perpetually
> > > shuffling a
> > > > > > > > stateless
> > > > > > > > > task from one node to another. So, my hope is that this
> small
> > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > > > inefficiency would not be a performance-dominating factor.
> In
> > > > > exchange,
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > gain the opportunity for the assignment algorithm to use
> the
> > > > > stateless
> > > > > > > > > tasks as "filler" during unbalanced assignments. For
> example,
> > > if
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > node that is just warming up with several standby tasks,
> > maybe
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > assignment can give more stateless tasks to that node to
> > > balance
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > computational load across the cluster.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's worth noting that such an assignment would still not
> be
> > > > > considered
> > > > > > > > > "balanced", so the ultimately balanced final state of the
> > > > > assignment
> > > > > > > > (after
> > > > > > > > > task movements) would still have the desired property that
> > each
> > > > > > > stateful
> > > > > > > > > and stateless task is evenly spread across the cluster.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Does that seem reasonable?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > -John
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:22 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Hello John,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I've made another pass on the wiki page again, overall
> LGTM.
> > > One
> > > > > meta
> > > > > > > > >> comment about the "stateless" tasks: how do we represent
> > them
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> metadata? Are they just treated as stateful tasks with
> > logging
> > > > > > > disabled,
> > > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > > >> are specially handled? It is not very clear in the
> > > description.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:43 AM John Roesler <
> > > john@confluent.io
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > I have also specifically called out that the assignment
> > must
> > > > > achieve
> > > > > > > > >> both
> > > > > > > > >> > "instance" and "task" balance:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Defining%22balance%22
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > I've also addressed the problem of state stores with
> > logging
> > > > > > > disabled:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statewithloggingdisabled
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > I believe this addresses all the concerns that have been
> > > > raised
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > date.
> > > > > > > > >> > Apologies if I've overlooked one of your concerns.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Please give the KIP another read and let me know of any
> > > > further
> > > > > > > > >> thoughts!
> > > > > > > > >> > Hopefully, we can start the voting on this KIP by the
> end
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > week.
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> > -John
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:16 PM John Roesler <
> > > > john@confluent.io
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > In response to Bruno's concern #2, I've also added
> that
> > > > > section to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > "Rejected Alternatives" section.
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Additionally, after reviewing some other assignment
> > > papers,
> > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > >> > developed
> > > > > > > > >> > > the concern that specifying which "phases" the
> > assignment
> > > > > > > algorithm
> > > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > > >> > > have, or indeed the logic of it at all, might be a
> > mistake
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > over-constrains our ability to write an optimal
> > algorithm.
> > > > > > > > Therefore,
> > > > > > > > >> > I've
> > > > > > > > >> > > also refactored the KIP to just describe the protocol,
> > and
> > > > > specify
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > requirements for the assignment algorithm, but not its
> > > exact
> > > > > > > > behavior
> > > > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > > >> > > all.
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> > > -John
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:13 PM John Roesler <
> > > > > john@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >> Hi All,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > >> Thanks for the discussion. I've been considering the
> > idea
> > > > of
> > > > > > > giving
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > >> "catching up" tasks a different name/role. I was in
> > favor
> > > > > > > > initially,
> > > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > > >> > >> after working though some details, I think it causes
> > some
> > > > > > > problems,
> > > > > > > > >> > which
> > > > > > > > >> > >> I've written up in the "rejected alternatives" part
> of
> > > the
> > > > > KIP:
> > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Addinganewkindoftask(%22moving%22,%22recovering%22,%22learner%22)fortaskmovements
> > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > >> Please give it a read and let me know what you think.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> > >> -John
> > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:57 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> I think I agree with you Sophie. My gut feeling is
> > that
> > > 1)
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> be
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> the major concern in assignor's algorithm for
> standby
> > > > tasks
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > catching
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> up, but rather be tackled in different modules, and
> > 2) a
> > > > > lot of
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> optimization can be down at the stream thread
> itself,
> > > like
> > > > > > > > dedicated
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> threading and larger batching, or even complicated
> > > > > scheduling
> > > > > > > > >> > mechanisms
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> between running, restoring and standby tasks. In
> > > anyways,
> > > > I
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > can
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> take this out of the scope of KIP-441 for now.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:48 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > > > > > > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > we may have other ways to not starving the
> standby
> > > > > tasks,
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> example, by
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or even
> > > > > consider
> > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > *higher> priority for standby than active* so that
> > we
> > > > > always
> > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> caught
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > up standby
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > first, then process active
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > This is an interesting idea, but seems likely to
> get
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > original idea of this KIP
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > -- if we always process standby tasks first, then
> if
> > > we
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> assigned
> > > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby task we
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > will have to wait for it to catch up completely
> > before
> > > > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > >> any
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > active tasks! That's
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > even worse than the situation this KIP is trying
> to
> > > help
> > > > > with,
> > > > > > > > >> since
> > > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby task has to
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > restore from 0 (whereas an active task at least
> can
> > > take
> > > > > over
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> wherever
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > the standby was).
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > During restoration -- while there exist any
> > restoring
> > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > -- I
> > > > > > > > >> > think
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> it's
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > reasonable to de-prioritize the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby tasks and just process restoring and
> active
> > > > tasks
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> make
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > progress. But we should
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > let them catch up afterwards somehow -- maybe we
> can
> > > > apply
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >> kind
> > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > heuristic, like "if we haven't
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > processed standbys for X iterations, or Y
> > > milliseconds,
> > > > > do so
> > > > > > > > >> now."
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > Actually, it might even be beneficial to avoid
> > > > processing
> > > > > > > > >> standbys a
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> record
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > or two at a time and instead
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > wait for a large enough batch to build up for the
> > > > RocksDB
> > > > > > > > >> > bulk-loading
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > benefits.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > I think the "use dedicated threads for standby" is
> > the
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > >> promising
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> end
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > goal, especially since
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > if we split restoration into "restoring tasks"
> then
> > > > > active and
> > > > > > > > >> > standbys
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > share almost nothing. But
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > that seems like follow-up work to the current KIP
> :)
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:31 PM Sophie
> Blee-Goldman <
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > Stateful tasks with logging disabled seem to be
> an
> > > > > > > interesting
> > > > > > > > >> edge
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> case.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > On the one hand,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > for balancing purposes they should be considered
> > > > > stateful
> > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > Guozhang pointed out
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > they are still "heavy" in IO costs. But for
> > > "catching
> > > > > up"
> > > > > > > > >> purposes,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> ie
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > when allocating standby
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks that will become active tasks, they should
> > be
> > > > > > > considered
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> stateless
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > as there is so
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > meaningful sense of their lag. We should never
> > > > allocate
> > > > > > > > standby
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> tasks for
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > them during the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > first rebalance, but should ensure they are
> evenly
> > > > > > > distributed
> > > > > > > > >> > across
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > instances. Maybe we
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > should split these into a third category --
> after
> > we
> > > > > assign
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> stateful
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks with logging, we
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > then distribute the set of logging-disabled
> > stateful
> > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > improve
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > balance, before lastly
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > distributing stateless tasks?
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > This actually leads into what I was just
> thinking,
> > > > > which is
> > > > > > > > >> that we
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > really
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > should distinguish the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > "catch-up" standbys from normal standbys as well
> > as
> > > > > > > > >> distinguishing
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > actively processing tasks
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > from active tasks that are still in the restore
> > > phase.
> > > > > It's
> > > > > > > > >> > somewhat
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > awkward that today, some
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > active tasks just start processing immediately
> > while
> > > > > others
> > > > > > > > >> behave
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> more
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > like standby than active
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks for some time, before switching to real
> > > active.
> > > > > They
> > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > >> > use
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > restoreConsumer, then
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > later only the "normal" consumer.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > However, this restore period is still distinct
> > from
> > > > > normal
> > > > > > > > >> standbys
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> in a
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > lot of ways -- the code path
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > for restoring is different than for updating
> > > standbys,
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> example
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> in how
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > long we block on #poll.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > So in addition to giving them their own name --
> > > let's
> > > > go
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> restoring
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > task for now -- they really
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > do seem to deserve being their own distinct
> task.
> > We
> > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> optimize
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> them
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > for
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > efficient conversion
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > to active tasks since we know that's what they
> > will
> > > > be.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > This resolves some of the awkwardness of dealing
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> special
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> case
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > mentioned above: we
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > find a balanced assignment of stateful and
> > stateless
> > > > > tasks,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> create
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > restoring tasks as needed.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > If logging is disabled, no restoring task is
> > > created.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:44 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > > >> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> Regarding 3) above: I think for active task
> they
> > > > should
> > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> considered
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful since the processor would still pay IO
> > > cost
> > > > > > > > accessing
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > store,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> but they would not have standby tasks?
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:49 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > > > > > >> bruno@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Thank you for the KIP!
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Some questions/comments:
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 1. I am wondering if the "stand-by" tasks
> that
> > > > catch
> > > > > up
> > > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> before
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the active task is switched deserve its own
> > name
> > > in
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> maybe
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in the code. We have already stated that they
> > are
> > > > not
> > > > > > > true
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> stand-by
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks, they are not configured through
> > > > > > > > >> `num.standby.replicas`,
> > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > maybe they have also other properties that
> > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > >> from
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> true
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > stand-by tasks of which we are not aware yet.
> > For
> > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > >> they
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> may be
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > prioritized differently than other tasks.
> > > > > Furthermore,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> name
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > "stand-by" does not really fit with the
> planned
> > > > > > > > >> functionality of
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> those
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks. In the following, I will call them
> false
> > > > > stand-by
> > > > > > > > >> tasks.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 2. Did you consider to trigger the probing
> > > > > rebalances not
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> regular
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > time intervals but when the false stand-by
> > tasks
> > > > > reach an
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> acceptable
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > lag? If you did consider, could you add a
> > > paragraph
> > > > > why
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> rejected
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > this idea to the "Rejected Alternatives"
> > section.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 3. Are tasks that solely contain stores with
> > > > disabled
> > > > > > > > logging
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > classified as stateful or stateless in the
> > > > > algorithm? I
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> guess
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > stateless, although if possible they should
> be
> > > > > assigned
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> same
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > instance they had run before the rebalance.
> As
> > > far
> > > > > as I
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> see
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > special case is not handled in the algorithm.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Best,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Bruno
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:24 AM Guozhang Wang
> <
> > > > > > > > >> > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 1. Sounds good, just wanted to clarify; and
> > it
> > > > may
> > > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> documenting
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> it
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > so
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > that users would not be surprised when
> > > monitoring
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> footprint.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 2. Hmm I see... I think the trade-off can
> be
> > > > > described
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> "how
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> much
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance would bother you to be willing to
> > pay
> > > > > another
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> rebalance,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> along
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > with potentially more restoration lag", and
> > the
> > > > > current
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> definition
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > rebalance_factor can be considered as a
> rough
> > > > > > > measurement
> > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> that
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance. Of course one can argue that a
> > finer
> > > > > grained
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> measurement
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> could
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > be "resource footprint" like CPU / storage
> of
> > > > each
> > > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> like we
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> have
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > Kafka broker auto balancing tools, but I'd
> > > prefer
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> that as
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> part
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the library but more as an operational tool
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > >> On
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> other
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > hand, I've seen stateful and stateless
> tasks
> > > > having
> > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> different
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> load,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > and sometimes the only bottleneck of a
> > Streams
> > > > app
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > >> one
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > sub-topology and whoever gets tasks of that
> > > > > > > sub-topology
> > > > > > > > >> > become
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> hotspot
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > (and that's why our algorithm tries to
> > balance
> > > > per
> > > > > > > > >> > sub-topology
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> as
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> well),
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > so maybe we can just consider stateful
> tasks
> > > when
> > > > > > > > >> calculating
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> factor
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > as a very brute force heuristic?
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 3.a. Thinking about this a bit more, maybe
> > it's
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> try
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> to
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> tackle
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > an
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > unseen enemy just yet, and observe if it
> > really
> > > > > emerges
> > > > > > > > >> later,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > by
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > then
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > we may have other ways to not starving the
> > > > standby
> > > > > > > tasks,
> > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> example, by
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or
> > > even
> > > > > > > consider
> > > > > > > > >> > having
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> higher
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > priority for standby than active so that we
> > > > always
> > > > > try
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> caught up
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > standby
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > first, then process active; and if active's
> > > > lagging
> > > > > > > > >> compared
> > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > log-end-offset is increasing then we should
> > > > > increase
> > > > > > > > >> capacity,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> etc
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> etc.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 4. Actually with KIP-429 this may not be
> the
> > > > case:
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> call
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > onPartitionsRevoked prior to rebalance any
> > more
> > > > so
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> transit
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > state
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > to PARTITIONS_REVOKED, and hence not cause
> > the
> > > > > state of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> instance
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > be
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > REBALANCING. In other words, even if a
> > instance
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> undergoing
> > > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> rebalance
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > it's state may still be RUNNING and it may
> > > still
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> processing
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> records at
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the same time.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:14 PM John
> Roesler
> > <
> > > > > > > > >> > john@confluent.io
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks for the review!
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 1. Yes, even with `num.standby.replicas
> :=
> > > 0`,
> > > > we
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> still
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > temporarily
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allocate standby tasks to accomplish a
> > > > > no-downtime
> > > > > > > task
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> migration.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Although, I'd argue that this doesn't
> > really
> > > > > violate
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> config,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > as
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > task isn't a true hot standby. As soon as
> > it
> > > > > catches
> > > > > > > > up,
> > > > > > > > >> > we'll
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > rebalance
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > again, that task will become active, and
> > the
> > > > > original
> > > > > > > > >> > instance
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > that
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > hosted
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the active task will no longer have the
> > task
> > > > > assigned
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > all.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> Once
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > stateDirCleaner kicks in, we'll free the
> > disk
> > > > > space
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > >> it,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > return to
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the steady-state of having just one copy
> of
> > > the
> > > > > task
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > cluster.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > We can of course do without this, but I
> > feel
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> proposal
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > is
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > operationally preferable, since it
> doesn't
> > > make
> > > > > > > > >> configuring
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > hot-standbys a
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > pre-requisite for fast rebalances.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 2. Yes, I think your interpretation is
> what
> > > we
> > > > > > > > intended.
> > > > > > > > >> The
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > default
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor would be 1, as it is
> > > implicitly
> > > > > today.
> > > > > > > > >> What
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> does is
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allows operators to trade off less
> balanced
> > > > > > > assignments
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> against
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> fewer
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > rebalances. If you have lots of space
> > > capacity
> > > > in
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> instances,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> this
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > may
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be a perfectly fine tradeoff, and you may
> > > > prefer
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> Streams
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> not
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > to
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > bother
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > streaming GBs of data from the broker in
> > > > pursuit
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> perfect
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > balance.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Not
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > married to this configuration, though. It
> > was
> > > > > > > inspired
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> related
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > work
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > research we did.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3. I'll take a look
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3a. I think this is a good idea. I'd
> > classify
> > > > it
> > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> grey
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > failure
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > detection. It may make more sense to
> tackle
> > > > grey
> > > > > > > > >> failures as
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> part
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > heartbeat protocol (as I POCed here:
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/7096/files
> > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 4. Good catch! I didn't think about that
> > > > before.
> > > > > > > > Looking
> > > > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > now,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > though,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > I wonder if we're actually protected
> > already.
> > > > The
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> stateDirCleaner
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > only executes if the instance is in
> RUNNING
> > > > > state,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > KIP-441
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > proposes to
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > use "probing rebalances" to report task
> > lag.
> > > > > Hence,
> > > > > > > > >> during
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> window
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > between when the instance reports a lag
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > > > assignor
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> makes a
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > decision
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > about it, the instance should remain in
> > > > > REBALANCING
> > > > > > > > >> state,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> right?
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > If
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > so,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > then this should prevent the race
> > condition.
> > > If
> > > > > not,
> > > > > > > > >> then we
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> do
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> indeed
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > need
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > to do something about it.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 5. Good idea. I think that today, you can
> > > only
> > > > > see
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> consumer
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > lag,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > which
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > is a poor substitute. I'll add some
> metrics
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> proposal.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks again for the comments!
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > -John
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:27 PM Guozhang
> > Wang
> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Hello Sophie,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I left
> some
> > > > > comments
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> wiki
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > and I
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > think I'm still not very clear on a
> > couple
> > > or
> > > > > > > those:
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 1. With this proposal, does that mean
> > with
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> num.standby.replicas
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > ==
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 0, we
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > may sometimes still have some standby
> > tasks
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> violate
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > config?
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 2. I think I understand the rationale
> to
> > > > > consider
> > > > > > > > lags
> > > > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> is
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> below
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > specified threshold to be equal, rather
> > > than
> > > > > still
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> 5000
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > is
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > better than 5001 -- we do not want to
> > > > > > > "over-optimize"
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> potentially
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > falls
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > into endless rebalances back and forth.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > But I'm not clear about the rationale
> of
> > > the
> > > > > second
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> parameter of
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > constrainedBalancedAssignment(StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > balance_factor):
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Does that mean, e.g. with
> balance_factor
> > of
> > > > 3,
> > > > > we'd
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> consider two
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > assignments one resulting
> balance_factor
> > 0
> > > > and
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > > >> > resulting
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3 to be equally optimized assignment
> and
> > > > > therefore
> > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > >> > "stop
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> early"?
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > This
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > was not very convincing to me :P
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3. There are a couple of minor comments
> > > about
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > algorithm
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > left
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the wiki page since it needs to refer
> to
> > > the
> > > > > exact
> > > > > > > > line
> > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > better
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > displayed there.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3.a Another wild thought about the
> > > threshold
> > > > > > > itself:
> > > > > > > > >> today
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > assignment
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > itself is memoryless, so we would not
> > know
> > > if
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> reported
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLag`
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > itself
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > is increasing or decreasing even if the
> > > > current
> > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> under
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > threshold. I wonder if it worthy to
> make
> > > it a
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> complicated to
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > track
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > task lag trend at the assignor?
> > Practically
> > > > it
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> very
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > uncommon
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that stand-by tasks are not keeping up
> > due
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > fact
> > > > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > other
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > active
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > tasks hosted on the same thread is
> > starving
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > standby
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> tasks.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 4. There's a potential race condition
> > risk
> > > > when
> > > > > > > > >> reporting
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLags`
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > subscription: right after reporting it
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > leader,
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > cleanup
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > kicks in and deletes the state
> directory.
> > > If
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > task
> > > > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > assigned
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > to the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > host it would cause it to restore from
> > > > > beginning
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> effectively
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > make the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > seemingly optimized assignment very
> > > > > sub-optimal.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > To be on the safer side we should
> > consider
> > > > > either
> > > > > > > > prune
> > > > > > > > >> > out
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > those
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that are "close to be cleaned up" in
> the
> > > > > > > > subscription,
> > > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > > >> > we
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> should
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > delay
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the cleanup right after we've included
> > them
> > > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> subscription
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > in
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > case
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > they are been selected as assigned
> tasks
> > by
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> assignor.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 5. This is a meta comment: I think it
> > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > helpful
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> add
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > some
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > user
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > visibility on the standby tasks lagging
> > as
> > > > > well,
> > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> metrics for
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > example.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Today it is hard for us to observe how
> > far
> > > > are
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > > >> current
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > compared to the active tasks and
> whether
> > > that
> > > > > lag
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> being
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > increasing or
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > decreasing. As a follow-up task, for
> > > example,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > rebalance
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > should
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > also
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > triggered if we realize that some
> standby
> > > > > task's
> > > > > > > lag
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > increasing
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > indefinitely means that it cannot keep
> up
> > > > > (which is
> > > > > > > > >> > another
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> indicator
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > either you need to add more resources
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > num.standbys
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> or
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> your
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > are
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > still not balanced enough).
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:32 PM Sophie
> > > > > Blee-Goldman
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Hey all,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > I'd like to kick off discussion on
> > > KIP-441,
> > > > > aimed
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> long
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > restore
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > times
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > in Streams during which further
> active
> > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > >> and IQ
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> are
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > blocked.
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Please give it a read and let us know
> > > your
> > > > > > > thoughts
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Sophie
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> --
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> --
> > > > > > > > >> > >>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- Guozhang
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams

Posted by Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.

Hi John,

I think I may mis-communicate my ideas a bit, what I meant is simply for
case 1), let the active tasks reporting a lag of 0 instead of not reporting
any lags at all; in addition, for other hosts not hosting this tasks, and
hence we do not know the offset lag at all we set the
"StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates[task][1]
:= instance" just to make sure the current host is ranked the first while
all others are ranked equally after it. In this case we would still favor
stickiness for not moving such tasks out of its current host unless it
violates balance, in which case we are free to move it to any other hosts.
Does that make sense?

Also I just realized that in the update wiki page the algorithm section of
iteratively assigning / moving tasks based on
StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates until convergence was missing (it was there
in the previous version), could you add it back?

Guozhang


On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:59 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:

> Thanks for the reply, Guozhang,
>
> I'll start by re-stating your cases, just to make sure we're on the same
> page...
>
> 1) The task is stateful, and all its stores are non-logged. For this case
> under the proposal, we would not have any standbys and the active version
> would actually not report any lag at all (not a lag of 0). Thus, all
> instances would be considered equal when it comes to assignment, although
> the assignment logic would know that the task is "heavy" because it has
> those non-logged stores and factor that in to the overall cluster balance.
>
> 2) The task is stateful and maybe has one logged and one non-logged store.
> As you say, in this case, the non-logged store would not contribute at all
> to anyone's reported lag. The active task would report a lag of 0, and the
> standbys would report their lag on the logged store. The assignment logic
> would take these reported lags into account.
>
> It sounds like there might be some dissonance on point (1). It sounds like
> you're saying we should try to assign non-logged stateful tasks back to an
> instance that has previously hosted it, or maybe we should assign it back
> to the most recent instance that hosted it, and then only reassign it if
> the movement would affect balance. I guess I'm not opposed to this, but I
> also don't really see the advantage. The fact is that we'd still wind up
> migrating it much of the time, so no one could depend on it not getting
> migrated, and at the same time we're paying a significant complexity cost
> in the assignor to support this case. Plus, we need to encode the previous
> owner of the task somehow in the wire protocol, which means we pay a
> payload-size penalty to support it as well.
>
> On the other hand, we should make our assignment as stable as possible in
> the implementation to avoid pointless "swapping" of logged and non-logged
> stateful tasks, as well as stateless tasks when it doesn't change the
> balance at all to do so. It seems like this should accomplish the same
> spiritual goal with no special cases.
>
> WDYT?
> -John
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:26 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello John,
> >
> > Your reasoning about non-logged state store looks good to me. But I think
> > it worth considering two cases differently: 1) a task's all state stores
> > are non-logged, 2) a task has non-logged state store but also have other
> > logged state store.
> >
> > For 1), we should not have any standbys for such tasks at all, but it is
> > not the same as a stateless task, because the only active task could
> report
> > a lag of "0" while all others should logically report the lag as infinity
> > (of course, they would not encode such value).
> >
> > For 2), it is sort of the same to a normal case: active task reporting a
> > lag of 0 while standby task reporting a lag summing all other logged
> state
> > stores, meaning that the non-logged state store does not matter in our
> > assignment semantics.
> >
> > The rationale I had is to effectively favor stickiness for those tasks in
> > case 1) than arbitrarily reassign them even though it is true that for a
> > non-logged store there's no durability and hence restoration guarantees
> > anyways from Streams. Then algorithmically we may consider assigning
> tasks
> > with descending order of the number of instances reporting lags for it,
> > then for such tasks there's always one candidate reporting a lag of 0,
> and
> > assigning them to any instance does not actually change the cumulated
> total
> > lag either. At that time we can decide "if it is still within load
> balance
> > factor, then let's respect stickiness, otherwise it's free to move".
> WDYT?
> >
> >
> > Guozhang
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Bruno,
> > >
> > > Thanks for taking another look. Some quick responses:
> > >
> > > 1) It just means the number of offsets in the topic. E.g., the LSO is
> > 100,
> > > but the first offset is 40 due to retention, so there are 60 offsets in
> > the
> > > topic. Further, the lag on that topic would be considered to be 60 for
> > any
> > > task that hadn't previously done any work on it.
> > >
> > > 2) This is undecidable in general. I.e., there's no way we can know
> > whether
> > > the store is remote or not, and hence whether we can freely assign it
> to
> > > another instance, or whether we have to keep it on the same instance.
> > > However, there are a couple of reasons to go ahead and assume we have
> the
> > > freedom to move such tasks.
> > > * We know that nothing can prevent the loss of an instance in a cluster
> > > (I.e., this is true of all cloud environments, as well as any managed
> > > virtualized cluster like mesos or kubernetes), so any Streams program
> > that
> > > makes use of non-remote, non-logged state is doomed to lose its state
> > when
> > > it loses an instance.
> > > * If we take on a restriction that we cannot move such state between
> > > instances, we'd become overconstrained very quickly. Effectively, if
> you
> > > made use of non-logged stores, and we didn't assume freedom of
> movement,
> > > then we couldn't make use of any new instances in your cluster.
> > > * On the other hand, if we optimistically assume we can't move state,
> but
> > > only reassign it when we lose an instance, then we're supporting
> > > non-deterministic logic, because the program would produce different
> > > results, depending on whether you lost a node during the execution or
> > not.
> > > 2b) That last point goes along with your side note. I'm not sure if we
> > > should bother dropping such state on every reassignment, though. It
> seems
> > > to be undefined territory enough that we can just do the simplest thing
> > and
> > > assume people have made their own (external) provisions for durability.
> > > I.e., when we say "non-logged", we mean that it doesn't make use of
> _our_
> > > durability mechanism. I'm arguing that the only sane assumption is that
> > > such folks have opted to use their own durability measures, and we
> should
> > > just assume it works with no special considerations in the assignment
> > > algorithm.
> > >
> > > 3) Good catch! I've fixed it.
> > >
> > > Thanks again!
> > > -John
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:09 AM Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > 1) What do you mean with "full set of offsets in the topic"? Is this
> > > > the sum of all offsets of the changelog partitions of the task?
> > > >
> > > > 2) I am not sure whether non-logged stateful tasks should be
> > > > effectively treated as stateless tasks during assignment. First we
> > > > need to decide whether a non-logged stateful task should preferably
> be
> > > > assigned to the same instance on which it just run in order to
> > > > continue to use its state or not.
> > > >
> > > > 3) In the example, you define stand-by tasks {S1, S2, ...} but never
> > > > use them, because below you use a dedicated row for stand-by tasks.
> > > >
> > > > As a side note to 2) since it is not directly related to this KIP: We
> > > > should decide if we want to avoid the possible non-determinism
> > > > introduced by non-logged stores or not. That is, if an instance hosts
> > > > a task with non-logged stores then we can have two cases after the
> > > > next rebalance: a) the task stays on the same instance and continues
> > > > to use the same state store as used so far or b) the task is assigned
> > > > to another instance and it starts an empty state store. The produced
> > > > results for these two cases might differ. To avoid the
> nondeterminism,
> > > > non-logged state stores would need to be wiped out before assignment.
> > > > Then the question arises, how the removal of non-logged state stores
> > > > before assignment would affect backward-compatibility.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Bruno
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:40 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Guozhang,
> > > > >
> > > > > > My impression from your previous email is that inside the
> algorithm
> > > > when
> > > > > we
> > > > > are "filling" them to instances some deterministic logic would be
> > used
> > > to
> > > > > avoid the above case, is that correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that was my plan, but I didn't formalize it. There was a
> > > requirement
> > > > > that the assignment algorithm must not produce a new assignment if
> > the
> > > > > current assignment is already balanced, so at the least, any
> > thrashing
> > > > > would be restricted to the "balancing" phase while tasks are moving
> > > > around
> > > > > the cluster.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, I think it would be good to say that we'll "try to" produce
> > > > stable
> > > > > assignments, so I've added a "should" clause to the assignment
> spec:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-AssignmentAlgorithm
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, we would sort the stateless tasks and available
> > instances
> > > > > before assigning them, so that the stateless task assignment would
> > > mostly
> > > > > stay stable between assignments, modulo the compute capacity of the
> > > > > instances changing a little as active stateful tasks get assigned
> in
> > > more
> > > > > balanced ways.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > -John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:55 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello John,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That sounds reasonable. Just double checked the code that with
> > > logging
> > > > > > disabled the corresponding checkpoint file would not contain any
> > > > values,
> > > > > > just like a stateless task. So I think treating them logically
> the
> > > > same is
> > > > > > fine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM John Roesler <john@confluent.io
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi again, Guozhang,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > While writing up the section on stateless tasks (
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statelesstasks
> > > > > > > ),
> > > > > > > I reconsidered whether stateful, but non-logged, tasks should
> > > > actually
> > > > > > > report a lag of zero, versus not reporting any lag. By the
> > > > definition of
> > > > > > > the "StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates" function, the leader
> would
> > > > compute
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > lag of zero for these tasks anyway.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Therefore, I think the same reasoning that I supplied you for
> > > > stateless
> > > > > > > tasks applies, since the member and leader will agree on a lag
> of
> > > > zero
> > > > > > > anyway, we can avoid adding them to the "Task Lags" map, and
> save
> > > > some
> > > > > > > bytes in the JoinGroup request. This would be especially
> > beneficial
> > > > in an
> > > > > > > application that uses remote stores for _all_ its state stores,
> > it
> > > > would
> > > > > > > have an extremely lightweight JoinGroup request, with no task
> > lags
> > > at
> > > > > > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > -John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:17 PM John Roesler <
> john@confluent.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, Guozhang.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (Side note: I noticed on another pass over the discussion
> that
> > > I'd
> > > > > > missed
> > > > > > > > addressing your comment about the potential race condition
> > > between
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > > > cleanup and lag-based assignment. I've added a solution to
> the
> > > > > > proposal:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Racebetweenassignmentandstatecleanup
> > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In the JoinGroup (SubscriptionInfo) metadata, stateless tasks
> > are
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > represented at all. This should save us some bytes in the
> > request
> > > > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > > > If we treated them like non-logged stateful tasks and
> reported
> > a
> > > > lag of
> > > > > > > 0,
> > > > > > > > the only difference is that the assignor would be able to
> tell
> > > > which
> > > > > > > > members previously hosted that stateless task.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd like to make a simplifying assumption that stateless
> tasks
> > > can
> > > > just
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > freely reassigned with no regard to stickiness at all,
> without
> > > > > > impacting
> > > > > > > > performance. This is almost true. In fact, while assigned a
> > > > stateless
> > > > > > > task,
> > > > > > > > a member fetches batches of records from the broker, so if we
> > > move
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > stateless task assignment, this buffered input is wasted and
> > just
> > > > gets
> > > > > > > > dropped.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, we won't be moving the stateless tasks around all
> the
> > > time
> > > > > > (just
> > > > > > > > during rebalances), and we have the requirement that the
> > > assigment
> > > > > > > > algorithm must stabilize to guard against perpetually
> > shuffling a
> > > > > > > stateless
> > > > > > > > task from one node to another. So, my hope is that this small
> > > > amount of
> > > > > > > > inefficiency would not be a performance-dominating factor. In
> > > > exchange,
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > gain the opportunity for the assignment algorithm to use the
> > > > stateless
> > > > > > > > tasks as "filler" during unbalanced assignments. For example,
> > if
> > > > there
> > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > node that is just warming up with several standby tasks,
> maybe
> > > the
> > > > > > > > assignment can give more stateless tasks to that node to
> > balance
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > computational load across the cluster.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's worth noting that such an assignment would still not be
> > > > considered
> > > > > > > > "balanced", so the ultimately balanced final state of the
> > > > assignment
> > > > > > > (after
> > > > > > > > task movements) would still have the desired property that
> each
> > > > > > stateful
> > > > > > > > and stateless task is evenly spread across the cluster.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Does that seem reasonable?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > -John
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:22 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Hello John,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I've made another pass on the wiki page again, overall LGTM.
> > One
> > > > meta
> > > > > > > >> comment about the "stateless" tasks: how do we represent
> them
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> metadata? Are they just treated as stateful tasks with
> logging
> > > > > > disabled,
> > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > >> are specially handled? It is not very clear in the
> > description.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Guozhang
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:43 AM John Roesler <
> > john@confluent.io
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > I have also specifically called out that the assignment
> must
> > > > achieve
> > > > > > > >> both
> > > > > > > >> > "instance" and "task" balance:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Defining%22balance%22
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > I've also addressed the problem of state stores with
> logging
> > > > > > disabled:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statewithloggingdisabled
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > I believe this addresses all the concerns that have been
> > > raised
> > > > to
> > > > > > > date.
> > > > > > > >> > Apologies if I've overlooked one of your concerns.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Please give the KIP another read and let me know of any
> > > further
> > > > > > > >> thoughts!
> > > > > > > >> > Hopefully, we can start the voting on this KIP by the end
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > week.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> > -John
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:16 PM John Roesler <
> > > john@confluent.io
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > In response to Bruno's concern #2, I've also added that
> > > > section to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > "Rejected Alternatives" section.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Additionally, after reviewing some other assignment
> > papers,
> > > > I've
> > > > > > > >> > developed
> > > > > > > >> > > the concern that specifying which "phases" the
> assignment
> > > > > > algorithm
> > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > >> > > have, or indeed the logic of it at all, might be a
> mistake
> > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > over-constrains our ability to write an optimal
> algorithm.
> > > > > > > Therefore,
> > > > > > > >> > I've
> > > > > > > >> > > also refactored the KIP to just describe the protocol,
> and
> > > > specify
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > requirements for the assignment algorithm, but not its
> > exact
> > > > > > > behavior
> > > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > >> > > all.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> > > -John
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:13 PM John Roesler <
> > > > john@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >> Hi All,
> > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> > >> Thanks for the discussion. I've been considering the
> idea
> > > of
> > > > > > giving
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > >> "catching up" tasks a different name/role. I was in
> favor
> > > > > > > initially,
> > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > >> > >> after working though some details, I think it causes
> some
> > > > > > problems,
> > > > > > > >> > which
> > > > > > > >> > >> I've written up in the "rejected alternatives" part of
> > the
> > > > KIP:
> > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Addinganewkindoftask(%22moving%22,%22recovering%22,%22learner%22)fortaskmovements
> > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> > >> Please give it a read and let me know what you think.
> > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> > >> -John
> > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:57 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> I think I agree with you Sophie. My gut feeling is
> that
> > 1)
> > > > it
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > >> > >>> be
> > > > > > > >> > >>> the major concern in assignor's algorithm for standby
> > > tasks
> > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > catching
> > > > > > > >> > >>> up, but rather be tackled in different modules, and
> 2) a
> > > > lot of
> > > > > > > >> > >>> optimization can be down at the stream thread itself,
> > like
> > > > > > > dedicated
> > > > > > > >> > >>> threading and larger batching, or even complicated
> > > > scheduling
> > > > > > > >> > mechanisms
> > > > > > > >> > >>> between running, restoring and standby tasks. In
> > anyways,
> > > I
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > can
> > > > > > > >> > >>> take this out of the scope of KIP-441 for now.
> > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:48 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > > > > > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > we may have other ways to not starving the standby
> > > > tasks,
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > >>> example, by
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or even
> > > > consider
> > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > *higher> priority for standby than active* so that
> we
> > > > always
> > > > > > try
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > >>> caught
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > up standby
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > first, then process active
> > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > This is an interesting idea, but seems likely to get
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > way
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > original idea of this KIP
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > -- if we always process standby tasks first, then if
> > we
> > > > are
> > > > > > > >> assigned
> > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby task we
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > will have to wait for it to catch up completely
> before
> > > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > >> any
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > active tasks! That's
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > even worse than the situation this KIP is trying to
> > help
> > > > with,
> > > > > > > >> since
> > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby task has to
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > restore from 0 (whereas an active task at least can
> > take
> > > > over
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > >> > >>> wherever
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > the standby was).
> > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > During restoration -- while there exist any
> restoring
> > > > tasks
> > > > > > -- I
> > > > > > > >> > think
> > > > > > > >> > >>> it's
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > reasonable to de-prioritize the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby tasks and just process restoring and active
> > > tasks
> > > > so
> > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > >> > >>> make
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > progress. But we should
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > let them catch up afterwards somehow -- maybe we can
> > > apply
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > >> kind
> > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > heuristic, like "if we haven't
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > processed standbys for X iterations, or Y
> > milliseconds,
> > > > do so
> > > > > > > >> now."
> > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > Actually, it might even be beneficial to avoid
> > > processing
> > > > > > > >> standbys a
> > > > > > > >> > >>> record
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > or two at a time and instead
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > wait for a large enough batch to build up for the
> > > RocksDB
> > > > > > > >> > bulk-loading
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > benefits.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > I think the "use dedicated threads for standby" is
> the
> > > > more
> > > > > > > >> promising
> > > > > > > >> > >>> end
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > goal, especially since
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > if we split restoration into "restoring tasks" then
> > > > active and
> > > > > > > >> > standbys
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > share almost nothing. But
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > that seems like follow-up work to the current KIP :)
> > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:31 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > > > > > >> > >>> sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > Stateful tasks with logging disabled seem to be an
> > > > > > interesting
> > > > > > > >> edge
> > > > > > > >> > >>> case.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > On the one hand,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > for balancing purposes they should be considered
> > > > stateful
> > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > Guozhang pointed out
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > they are still "heavy" in IO costs. But for
> > "catching
> > > > up"
> > > > > > > >> purposes,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> ie
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > when allocating standby
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks that will become active tasks, they should
> be
> > > > > > considered
> > > > > > > >> > >>> stateless
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > as there is so
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > meaningful sense of their lag. We should never
> > > allocate
> > > > > > > standby
> > > > > > > >> > >>> tasks for
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > them during the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > first rebalance, but should ensure they are evenly
> > > > > > distributed
> > > > > > > >> > across
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > instances. Maybe we
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > should split these into a third category -- after
> we
> > > > assign
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > >> > >>> stateful
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks with logging, we
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > then distribute the set of logging-disabled
> stateful
> > > > tasks
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > improve
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > balance, before lastly
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > distributing stateless tasks?
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > This actually leads into what I was just thinking,
> > > > which is
> > > > > > > >> that we
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > really
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > should distinguish the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > "catch-up" standbys from normal standbys as well
> as
> > > > > > > >> distinguishing
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > actively processing tasks
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > from active tasks that are still in the restore
> > phase.
> > > > It's
> > > > > > > >> > somewhat
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > awkward that today, some
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > active tasks just start processing immediately
> while
> > > > others
> > > > > > > >> behave
> > > > > > > >> > >>> more
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > like standby than active
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks for some time, before switching to real
> > active.
> > > > They
> > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > >> > use
> > > > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > restoreConsumer, then
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > later only the "normal" consumer.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > However, this restore period is still distinct
> from
> > > > normal
> > > > > > > >> standbys
> > > > > > > >> > >>> in a
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > lot of ways -- the code path
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > for restoring is different than for updating
> > standbys,
> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> example
> > > > > > > >> > >>> in how
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > long we block on #poll.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > So in addition to giving them their own name --
> > let's
> > > go
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > >>> restoring
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > task for now -- they really
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > do seem to deserve being their own distinct task.
> We
> > > can
> > > > > > > >> optimize
> > > > > > > >> > >>> them
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > for
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > efficient conversion
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > to active tasks since we know that's what they
> will
> > > be.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > This resolves some of the awkwardness of dealing
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> special
> > > > > > > >> > >>> case
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > mentioned above: we
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > find a balanced assignment of stateful and
> stateless
> > > > tasks,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > >>> create
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > restoring tasks as needed.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > If logging is disabled, no restoring task is
> > created.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:44 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > >> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> Regarding 3) above: I think for active task they
> > > should
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> considered
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful since the processor would still pay IO
> > cost
> > > > > > > accessing
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > store,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> but they would not have standby tasks?
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:49 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > > > > >> bruno@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Hi,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Thank you for the KIP!
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Some questions/comments:
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 1. I am wondering if the "stand-by" tasks that
> > > catch
> > > > up
> > > > > > > state
> > > > > > > >> > >>> before
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the active task is switched deserve its own
> name
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> > >>> maybe
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in the code. We have already stated that they
> are
> > > not
> > > > > > true
> > > > > > > >> > >>> stand-by
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks, they are not configured through
> > > > > > > >> `num.standby.replicas`,
> > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > maybe they have also other properties that
> > > > distinguish
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > >> from
> > > > > > > >> > >>> true
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > stand-by tasks of which we are not aware yet.
> For
> > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > >> they
> > > > > > > >> > >>> may be
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > prioritized differently than other tasks.
> > > > Furthermore,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> name
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > "stand-by" does not really fit with the planned
> > > > > > > >> functionality of
> > > > > > > >> > >>> those
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks. In the following, I will call them false
> > > > stand-by
> > > > > > > >> tasks.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 2. Did you consider to trigger the probing
> > > > rebalances not
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > >>> regular
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > time intervals but when the false stand-by
> tasks
> > > > reach an
> > > > > > > >> > >>> acceptable
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > lag? If you did consider, could you add a
> > paragraph
> > > > why
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> > >>> rejected
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > this idea to the "Rejected Alternatives"
> section.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 3. Are tasks that solely contain stores with
> > > disabled
> > > > > > > logging
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > classified as stateful or stateless in the
> > > > algorithm? I
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > >>> guess
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > stateless, although if possible they should be
> > > > assigned
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> same
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > instance they had run before the rebalance. As
> > far
> > > > as I
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> see
> > > > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > special case is not handled in the algorithm.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Best,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Bruno
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:24 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > >> > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 1. Sounds good, just wanted to clarify; and
> it
> > > may
> > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > >> > >>> documenting
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> it
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > so
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > that users would not be surprised when
> > monitoring
> > > > their
> > > > > > > >> > >>> footprint.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 2. Hmm I see... I think the trade-off can be
> > > > described
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> "how
> > > > > > > >> > >>> much
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance would bother you to be willing to
> pay
> > > > another
> > > > > > > >> > >>> rebalance,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> along
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > with potentially more restoration lag", and
> the
> > > > current
> > > > > > > >> > >>> definition
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > rebalance_factor can be considered as a rough
> > > > > > measurement
> > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > >> > >>> that
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance. Of course one can argue that a
> finer
> > > > grained
> > > > > > > >> > >>> measurement
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> could
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > be "resource footprint" like CPU / storage of
> > > each
> > > > > > > instance
> > > > > > > >> > >>> like we
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> have
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > Kafka broker auto balancing tools, but I'd
> > prefer
> > > > not
> > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > >> > >>> that as
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> part
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the library but more as an operational tool
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > >> On
> > > > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> other
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > hand, I've seen stateful and stateless tasks
> > > having
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > > >> > >>> different
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> load,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > and sometimes the only bottleneck of a
> Streams
> > > app
> > > > is
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > >> one
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > sub-topology and whoever gets tasks of that
> > > > > > sub-topology
> > > > > > > >> > become
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> hotspot
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > (and that's why our algorithm tries to
> balance
> > > per
> > > > > > > >> > sub-topology
> > > > > > > >> > >>> as
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> well),
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > so maybe we can just consider stateful tasks
> > when
> > > > > > > >> calculating
> > > > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> factor
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > as a very brute force heuristic?
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 3.a. Thinking about this a bit more, maybe
> it's
> > > > better
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> try
> > > > > > > >> > >>> to
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> tackle
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > an
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > unseen enemy just yet, and observe if it
> really
> > > > emerges
> > > > > > > >> later,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > by
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > then
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > we may have other ways to not starving the
> > > standby
> > > > > > tasks,
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> example, by
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or
> > even
> > > > > > consider
> > > > > > > >> > having
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> higher
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > priority for standby than active so that we
> > > always
> > > > try
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > >>> caught up
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > standby
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > first, then process active; and if active's
> > > lagging
> > > > > > > >> compared
> > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > log-end-offset is increasing then we should
> > > > increase
> > > > > > > >> capacity,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> etc
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> etc.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 4. Actually with KIP-429 this may not be the
> > > case:
> > > > we
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > >> > >>> call
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > onPartitionsRevoked prior to rebalance any
> more
> > > so
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > >> > >>> transit
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > state
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > to PARTITIONS_REVOKED, and hence not cause
> the
> > > > state of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> instance
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > be
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > REBALANCING. In other words, even if a
> instance
> > > is
> > > > > > > >> undergoing
> > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> rebalance
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > it's state may still be RUNNING and it may
> > still
> > > be
> > > > > > > >> processing
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> records at
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the same time.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:14 PM John Roesler
> <
> > > > > > > >> > john@confluent.io
> > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks for the review!
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 1. Yes, even with `num.standby.replicas :=
> > 0`,
> > > we
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> still
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > temporarily
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allocate standby tasks to accomplish a
> > > > no-downtime
> > > > > > task
> > > > > > > >> > >>> migration.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Although, I'd argue that this doesn't
> really
> > > > violate
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> config,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > as
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > task isn't a true hot standby. As soon as
> it
> > > > catches
> > > > > > > up,
> > > > > > > >> > we'll
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > rebalance
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > again, that task will become active, and
> the
> > > > original
> > > > > > > >> > instance
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > that
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > hosted
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the active task will no longer have the
> task
> > > > assigned
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > all.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> Once
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > stateDirCleaner kicks in, we'll free the
> disk
> > > > space
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > >> it,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > return to
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the steady-state of having just one copy of
> > the
> > > > task
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > cluster.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > We can of course do without this, but I
> feel
> > > the
> > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > >> > >>> proposal
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > is
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > operationally preferable, since it doesn't
> > make
> > > > > > > >> configuring
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > hot-standbys a
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > pre-requisite for fast rebalances.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 2. Yes, I think your interpretation is what
> > we
> > > > > > > intended.
> > > > > > > >> The
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > default
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor would be 1, as it is
> > implicitly
> > > > today.
> > > > > > > >> What
> > > > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> does is
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allows operators to trade off less balanced
> > > > > > assignments
> > > > > > > >> > >>> against
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> fewer
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > rebalances. If you have lots of space
> > capacity
> > > in
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > >> > >>> instances,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> this
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > may
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be a perfectly fine tradeoff, and you may
> > > prefer
> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> Streams
> > > > > > > >> > >>> not
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > to
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > bother
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > streaming GBs of data from the broker in
> > > pursuit
> > > > of
> > > > > > > >> perfect
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > balance.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Not
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > married to this configuration, though. It
> was
> > > > > > inspired
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> related
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > work
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > research we did.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3. I'll take a look
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3a. I think this is a good idea. I'd
> classify
> > > it
> > > > as a
> > > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > >>> grey
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > failure
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > detection. It may make more sense to tackle
> > > grey
> > > > > > > >> failures as
> > > > > > > >> > >>> part
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > heartbeat protocol (as I POCed here:
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/7096/files
> > > > ).
> > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 4. Good catch! I didn't think about that
> > > before.
> > > > > > > Looking
> > > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > now,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > though,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > I wonder if we're actually protected
> already.
> > > The
> > > > > > > >> > >>> stateDirCleaner
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > only executes if the instance is in RUNNING
> > > > state,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > KIP-441
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > proposes to
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > use "probing rebalances" to report task
> lag.
> > > > Hence,
> > > > > > > >> during
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> window
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > between when the instance reports a lag and
> > the
> > > > > > > assignor
> > > > > > > >> > >>> makes a
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > decision
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > about it, the instance should remain in
> > > > REBALANCING
> > > > > > > >> state,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> right?
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > If
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > so,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > then this should prevent the race
> condition.
> > If
> > > > not,
> > > > > > > >> then we
> > > > > > > >> > >>> do
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> indeed
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > need
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > to do something about it.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 5. Good idea. I think that today, you can
> > only
> > > > see
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> consumer
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > lag,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > which
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > is a poor substitute. I'll add some metrics
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> proposal.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks again for the comments!
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > -John
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:27 PM Guozhang
> Wang
> > <
> > > > > > > >> > >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Hello Sophie,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I left some
> > > > comments
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> wiki
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > and I
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > think I'm still not very clear on a
> couple
> > or
> > > > > > those:
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 1. With this proposal, does that mean
> with
> > > > > > > >> > >>> num.standby.replicas
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > ==
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 0, we
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > may sometimes still have some standby
> tasks
> > > > which
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > >> > >>> violate
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > config?
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 2. I think I understand the rationale to
> > > > consider
> > > > > > > lags
> > > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > > >> > >>> is
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> below
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > specified threshold to be equal, rather
> > than
> > > > still
> > > > > > > >> > >>> considering
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> 5000
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > is
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > better than 5001 -- we do not want to
> > > > > > "over-optimize"
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> potentially
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > falls
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > into endless rebalances back and forth.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > But I'm not clear about the rationale of
> > the
> > > > second
> > > > > > > >> > >>> parameter of
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > constrainedBalancedAssignment(StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > balance_factor):
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Does that mean, e.g. with balance_factor
> of
> > > 3,
> > > > we'd
> > > > > > > >> > >>> consider two
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > assignments one resulting balance_factor
> 0
> > > and
> > > > one
> > > > > > > >> > resulting
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3 to be equally optimized assignment and
> > > > therefore
> > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > >> > "stop
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> early"?
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > This
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > was not very convincing to me :P
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3. There are a couple of minor comments
> > about
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > algorithm
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > left
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the wiki page since it needs to refer to
> > the
> > > > exact
> > > > > > > line
> > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > better
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > displayed there.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3.a Another wild thought about the
> > threshold
> > > > > > itself:
> > > > > > > >> today
> > > > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > assignment
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > itself is memoryless, so we would not
> know
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> reported
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLag`
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > itself
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > is increasing or decreasing even if the
> > > current
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > >> > >>> under
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > threshold. I wonder if it worthy to make
> > it a
> > > > bit
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> complicated to
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > track
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > task lag trend at the assignor?
> Practically
> > > it
> > > > may
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > >> > >>> very
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > uncommon
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that stand-by tasks are not keeping up
> due
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > fact
> > > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > other
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > active
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > tasks hosted on the same thread is
> starving
> > > the
> > > > > > > standby
> > > > > > > >> > >>> tasks.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 4. There's a potential race condition
> risk
> > > when
> > > > > > > >> reporting
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLags`
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > subscription: right after reporting it to
> > the
> > > > > > leader,
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > cleanup
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > kicks in and deletes the state directory.
> > If
> > > > the
> > > > > > task
> > > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > assigned
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > to the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > host it would cause it to restore from
> > > > beginning
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > >>> effectively
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > make the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > seemingly optimized assignment very
> > > > sub-optimal.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > To be on the safer side we should
> consider
> > > > either
> > > > > > > prune
> > > > > > > >> > out
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > those
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that are "close to be cleaned up" in the
> > > > > > > subscription,
> > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > >> > we
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> should
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > delay
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the cleanup right after we've included
> them
> > > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> subscription
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > in
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > case
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > they are been selected as assigned tasks
> by
> > > the
> > > > > > > >> assignor.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 5. This is a meta comment: I think it
> would
> > > be
> > > > > > > helpful
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > >>> add
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > some
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > user
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > visibility on the standby tasks lagging
> as
> > > > well,
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > >> > >>> metrics for
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > example.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Today it is hard for us to observe how
> far
> > > are
> > > > our
> > > > > > > >> current
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > standby
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > compared to the active tasks and whether
> > that
> > > > lag
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> being
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > increasing or
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > decreasing. As a follow-up task, for
> > example,
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > rebalance
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > should
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > also
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > triggered if we realize that some standby
> > > > task's
> > > > > > lag
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > increasing
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > indefinitely means that it cannot keep up
> > > > (which is
> > > > > > > >> > another
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> indicator
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > either you need to add more resources
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > num.standbys
> > > > > > > >> > >>> or
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> your
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > are
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > still not balanced enough).
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:32 PM Sophie
> > > > Blee-Goldman
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Hey all,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > I'd like to kick off discussion on
> > KIP-441,
> > > > aimed
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > >>> long
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > restore
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > times
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > in Streams during which further active
> > > > processing
> > > > > > > >> and IQ
> > > > > > > >> > >>> are
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > blocked.
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Please give it a read and let us know
> > your
> > > > > > thoughts
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Sophie
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > --
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> --
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > >>> --
> > > > > > > >> > >>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
> >
>


-- 
-- Guozhang

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams

Posted by John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>.

Thanks for the reply, Guozhang,

I'll start by re-stating your cases, just to make sure we're on the same
page...

1) The task is stateful, and all its stores are non-logged. For this case
under the proposal, we would not have any standbys and the active version
would actually not report any lag at all (not a lag of 0). Thus, all
instances would be considered equal when it comes to assignment, although
the assignment logic would know that the task is "heavy" because it has
those non-logged stores and factor that in to the overall cluster balance.

2) The task is stateful and maybe has one logged and one non-logged store.
As you say, in this case, the non-logged store would not contribute at all
to anyone's reported lag. The active task would report a lag of 0, and the
standbys would report their lag on the logged store. The assignment logic
would take these reported lags into account.

It sounds like there might be some dissonance on point (1). It sounds like
you're saying we should try to assign non-logged stateful tasks back to an
instance that has previously hosted it, or maybe we should assign it back
to the most recent instance that hosted it, and then only reassign it if
the movement would affect balance. I guess I'm not opposed to this, but I
also don't really see the advantage. The fact is that we'd still wind up
migrating it much of the time, so no one could depend on it not getting
migrated, and at the same time we're paying a significant complexity cost
in the assignor to support this case. Plus, we need to encode the previous
owner of the task somehow in the wire protocol, which means we pay a
payload-size penalty to support it as well.

On the other hand, we should make our assignment as stable as possible in
the implementation to avoid pointless "swapping" of logged and non-logged
stateful tasks, as well as stateless tasks when it doesn't change the
balance at all to do so. It seems like this should accomplish the same
spiritual goal with no special cases.

WDYT?
-John

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:26 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello John,
>
> Your reasoning about non-logged state store looks good to me. But I think
> it worth considering two cases differently: 1) a task's all state stores
> are non-logged, 2) a task has non-logged state store but also have other
> logged state store.
>
> For 1), we should not have any standbys for such tasks at all, but it is
> not the same as a stateless task, because the only active task could report
> a lag of "0" while all others should logically report the lag as infinity
> (of course, they would not encode such value).
>
> For 2), it is sort of the same to a normal case: active task reporting a
> lag of 0 while standby task reporting a lag summing all other logged state
> stores, meaning that the non-logged state store does not matter in our
> assignment semantics.
>
> The rationale I had is to effectively favor stickiness for those tasks in
> case 1) than arbitrarily reassign them even though it is true that for a
> non-logged store there's no durability and hence restoration guarantees
> anyways from Streams. Then algorithmically we may consider assigning tasks
> with descending order of the number of instances reporting lags for it,
> then for such tasks there's always one candidate reporting a lag of 0, and
> assigning them to any instance does not actually change the cumulated total
> lag either. At that time we can decide "if it is still within load balance
> factor, then let's respect stickiness, otherwise it's free to move". WDYT?
>
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Hey Bruno,
> >
> > Thanks for taking another look. Some quick responses:
> >
> > 1) It just means the number of offsets in the topic. E.g., the LSO is
> 100,
> > but the first offset is 40 due to retention, so there are 60 offsets in
> the
> > topic. Further, the lag on that topic would be considered to be 60 for
> any
> > task that hadn't previously done any work on it.
> >
> > 2) This is undecidable in general. I.e., there's no way we can know
> whether
> > the store is remote or not, and hence whether we can freely assign it to
> > another instance, or whether we have to keep it on the same instance.
> > However, there are a couple of reasons to go ahead and assume we have the
> > freedom to move such tasks.
> > * We know that nothing can prevent the loss of an instance in a cluster
> > (I.e., this is true of all cloud environments, as well as any managed
> > virtualized cluster like mesos or kubernetes), so any Streams program
> that
> > makes use of non-remote, non-logged state is doomed to lose its state
> when
> > it loses an instance.
> > * If we take on a restriction that we cannot move such state between
> > instances, we'd become overconstrained very quickly. Effectively, if you
> > made use of non-logged stores, and we didn't assume freedom of movement,
> > then we couldn't make use of any new instances in your cluster.
> > * On the other hand, if we optimistically assume we can't move state, but
> > only reassign it when we lose an instance, then we're supporting
> > non-deterministic logic, because the program would produce different
> > results, depending on whether you lost a node during the execution or
> not.
> > 2b) That last point goes along with your side note. I'm not sure if we
> > should bother dropping such state on every reassignment, though. It seems
> > to be undefined territory enough that we can just do the simplest thing
> and
> > assume people have made their own (external) provisions for durability.
> > I.e., when we say "non-logged", we mean that it doesn't make use of _our_
> > durability mechanism. I'm arguing that the only sane assumption is that
> > such folks have opted to use their own durability measures, and we should
> > just assume it works with no special considerations in the assignment
> > algorithm.
> >
> > 3) Good catch! I've fixed it.
> >
> > Thanks again!
> > -John
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:09 AM Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > 1) What do you mean with "full set of offsets in the topic"? Is this
> > > the sum of all offsets of the changelog partitions of the task?
> > >
> > > 2) I am not sure whether non-logged stateful tasks should be
> > > effectively treated as stateless tasks during assignment. First we
> > > need to decide whether a non-logged stateful task should preferably be
> > > assigned to the same instance on which it just run in order to
> > > continue to use its state or not.
> > >
> > > 3) In the example, you define stand-by tasks {S1, S2, ...} but never
> > > use them, because below you use a dedicated row for stand-by tasks.
> > >
> > > As a side note to 2) since it is not directly related to this KIP: We
> > > should decide if we want to avoid the possible non-determinism
> > > introduced by non-logged stores or not. That is, if an instance hosts
> > > a task with non-logged stores then we can have two cases after the
> > > next rebalance: a) the task stays on the same instance and continues
> > > to use the same state store as used so far or b) the task is assigned
> > > to another instance and it starts an empty state store. The produced
> > > results for these two cases might differ. To avoid the nondeterminism,
> > > non-logged state stores would need to be wiped out before assignment.
> > > Then the question arises, how the removal of non-logged state stores
> > > before assignment would affect backward-compatibility.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Bruno
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:40 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Guozhang,
> > > >
> > > > > My impression from your previous email is that inside the algorithm
> > > when
> > > > we
> > > > are "filling" them to instances some deterministic logic would be
> used
> > to
> > > > avoid the above case, is that correct?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that was my plan, but I didn't formalize it. There was a
> > requirement
> > > > that the assignment algorithm must not produce a new assignment if
> the
> > > > current assignment is already balanced, so at the least, any
> thrashing
> > > > would be restricted to the "balancing" phase while tasks are moving
> > > around
> > > > the cluster.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, I think it would be good to say that we'll "try to" produce
> > > stable
> > > > assignments, so I've added a "should" clause to the assignment spec:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-AssignmentAlgorithm
> > > >
> > > > For example, we would sort the stateless tasks and available
> instances
> > > > before assigning them, so that the stateless task assignment would
> > mostly
> > > > stay stable between assignments, modulo the compute capacity of the
> > > > instances changing a little as active stateful tasks get assigned in
> > more
> > > > balanced ways.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -John
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:55 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello John,
> > > > >
> > > > > That sounds reasonable. Just double checked the code that with
> > logging
> > > > > disabled the corresponding checkpoint file would not contain any
> > > values,
> > > > > just like a stateless task. So I think treating them logically the
> > > same is
> > > > > fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Guozhang
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi again, Guozhang,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While writing up the section on stateless tasks (
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statelesstasks
> > > > > > ),
> > > > > > I reconsidered whether stateful, but non-logged, tasks should
> > > actually
> > > > > > report a lag of zero, versus not reporting any lag. By the
> > > definition of
> > > > > > the "StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates" function, the leader would
> > > compute
> > > > > a
> > > > > > lag of zero for these tasks anyway.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Therefore, I think the same reasoning that I supplied you for
> > > stateless
> > > > > > tasks applies, since the member and leader will agree on a lag of
> > > zero
> > > > > > anyway, we can avoid adding them to the "Task Lags" map, and save
> > > some
> > > > > > bytes in the JoinGroup request. This would be especially
> beneficial
> > > in an
> > > > > > application that uses remote stores for _all_ its state stores,
> it
> > > would
> > > > > > have an extremely lightweight JoinGroup request, with no task
> lags
> > at
> > > > > all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > -John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:17 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks, Guozhang.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (Side note: I noticed on another pass over the discussion that
> > I'd
> > > > > missed
> > > > > > > addressing your comment about the potential race condition
> > between
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > cleanup and lag-based assignment. I've added a solution to the
> > > > > proposal:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Racebetweenassignmentandstatecleanup
> > > > > > > )
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the JoinGroup (SubscriptionInfo) metadata, stateless tasks
> are
> > > not
> > > > > > > represented at all. This should save us some bytes in the
> request
> > > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > > If we treated them like non-logged stateful tasks and reported
> a
> > > lag of
> > > > > > 0,
> > > > > > > the only difference is that the assignor would be able to tell
> > > which
> > > > > > > members previously hosted that stateless task.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to make a simplifying assumption that stateless tasks
> > can
> > > just
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > freely reassigned with no regard to stickiness at all, without
> > > > > impacting
> > > > > > > performance. This is almost true. In fact, while assigned a
> > > stateless
> > > > > > task,
> > > > > > > a member fetches batches of records from the broker, so if we
> > move
> > > the
> > > > > > > stateless task assignment, this buffered input is wasted and
> just
> > > gets
> > > > > > > dropped.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, we won't be moving the stateless tasks around all the
> > time
> > > > > (just
> > > > > > > during rebalances), and we have the requirement that the
> > assigment
> > > > > > > algorithm must stabilize to guard against perpetually
> shuffling a
> > > > > > stateless
> > > > > > > task from one node to another. So, my hope is that this small
> > > amount of
> > > > > > > inefficiency would not be a performance-dominating factor. In
> > > exchange,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > gain the opportunity for the assignment algorithm to use the
> > > stateless
> > > > > > > tasks as "filler" during unbalanced assignments. For example,
> if
> > > there
> > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > node that is just warming up with several standby tasks, maybe
> > the
> > > > > > > assignment can give more stateless tasks to that node to
> balance
> > > the
> > > > > > > computational load across the cluster.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's worth noting that such an assignment would still not be
> > > considered
> > > > > > > "balanced", so the ultimately balanced final state of the
> > > assignment
> > > > > > (after
> > > > > > > task movements) would still have the desired property that each
> > > > > stateful
> > > > > > > and stateless task is evenly spread across the cluster.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does that seem reasonable?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > -John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:22 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Hello John,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I've made another pass on the wiki page again, overall LGTM.
> One
> > > meta
> > > > > > >> comment about the "stateless" tasks: how do we represent them
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > >> metadata? Are they just treated as stateful tasks with logging
> > > > > disabled,
> > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > >> are specially handled? It is not very clear in the
> description.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Guozhang
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:43 AM John Roesler <
> john@confluent.io
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > I have also specifically called out that the assignment must
> > > achieve
> > > > > > >> both
> > > > > > >> > "instance" and "task" balance:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Defining%22balance%22
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I've also addressed the problem of state stores with logging
> > > > > disabled:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statewithloggingdisabled
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I believe this addresses all the concerns that have been
> > raised
> > > to
> > > > > > date.
> > > > > > >> > Apologies if I've overlooked one of your concerns.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Please give the KIP another read and let me know of any
> > further
> > > > > > >> thoughts!
> > > > > > >> > Hopefully, we can start the voting on this KIP by the end of
> > the
> > > > > week.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > >> > -John
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:16 PM John Roesler <
> > john@confluent.io
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > In response to Bruno's concern #2, I've also added that
> > > section to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > "Rejected Alternatives" section.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Additionally, after reviewing some other assignment
> papers,
> > > I've
> > > > > > >> > developed
> > > > > > >> > > the concern that specifying which "phases" the assignment
> > > > > algorithm
> > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > >> > > have, or indeed the logic of it at all, might be a mistake
> > > that
> > > > > > >> > > over-constrains our ability to write an optimal algorithm.
> > > > > > Therefore,
> > > > > > >> > I've
> > > > > > >> > > also refactored the KIP to just describe the protocol, and
> > > specify
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > requirements for the assignment algorithm, but not its
> exact
> > > > > > behavior
> > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > >> > > all.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >> > > -John
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:13 PM John Roesler <
> > > john@confluent.io>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >> Hi All,
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >> Thanks for the discussion. I've been considering the idea
> > of
> > > > > giving
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > >> "catching up" tasks a different name/role. I was in favor
> > > > > > initially,
> > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > >> > >> after working though some details, I think it causes some
> > > > > problems,
> > > > > > >> > which
> > > > > > >> > >> I've written up in the "rejected alternatives" part of
> the
> > > KIP:
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Addinganewkindoftask(%22moving%22,%22recovering%22,%22learner%22)fortaskmovements
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >> Please give it a read and let me know what you think.
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> > >> -John
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:57 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >>> I think I agree with you Sophie. My gut feeling is that
> 1)
> > > it
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > >> > >>> be
> > > > > > >> > >>> the major concern in assignor's algorithm for standby
> > tasks
> > > not
> > > > > > >> > catching
> > > > > > >> > >>> up, but rather be tackled in different modules, and 2) a
> > > lot of
> > > > > > >> > >>> optimization can be down at the stream thread itself,
> like
> > > > > > dedicated
> > > > > > >> > >>> threading and larger batching, or even complicated
> > > scheduling
> > > > > > >> > mechanisms
> > > > > > >> > >>> between running, restoring and standby tasks. In
> anyways,
> > I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > can
> > > > > > >> > >>> take this out of the scope of KIP-441 for now.
> > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > >> > >>> Guozhang
> > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > >> > >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:48 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > > > > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > we may have other ways to not starving the standby
> > > tasks,
> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > >>> example, by
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or even
> > > consider
> > > > > > having
> > > > > > >> > >>> > *higher> priority for standby than active* so that we
> > > always
> > > > > try
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> > >>> caught
> > > > > > >> > >>> > up standby
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > first, then process active
> > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > This is an interesting idea, but seems likely to get
> in
> > > the
> > > > > way
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > original idea of this KIP
> > > > > > >> > >>> > -- if we always process standby tasks first, then if
> we
> > > are
> > > > > > >> assigned
> > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > > > >> > >>> > standby task we
> > > > > > >> > >>> > will have to wait for it to catch up completely before
> > > > > > processing
> > > > > > >> any
> > > > > > >> > >>> > active tasks! That's
> > > > > > >> > >>> > even worse than the situation this KIP is trying to
> help
> > > with,
> > > > > > >> since
> > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > > > >> > >>> > standby task has to
> > > > > > >> > >>> > restore from 0 (whereas an active task at least can
> take
> > > over
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > >> > >>> wherever
> > > > > > >> > >>> > the standby was).
> > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > During restoration -- while there exist any restoring
> > > tasks
> > > > > -- I
> > > > > > >> > think
> > > > > > >> > >>> it's
> > > > > > >> > >>> > reasonable to de-prioritize the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > standby tasks and just process restoring and active
> > tasks
> > > so
> > > > > > both
> > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > >> > >>> make
> > > > > > >> > >>> > progress. But we should
> > > > > > >> > >>> > let them catch up afterwards somehow -- maybe we can
> > apply
> > > > > some
> > > > > > >> kind
> > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > >> > >>> > heuristic, like "if we haven't
> > > > > > >> > >>> > processed standbys for X iterations, or Y
> milliseconds,
> > > do so
> > > > > > >> now."
> > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > Actually, it might even be beneficial to avoid
> > processing
> > > > > > >> standbys a
> > > > > > >> > >>> record
> > > > > > >> > >>> > or two at a time and instead
> > > > > > >> > >>> > wait for a large enough batch to build up for the
> > RocksDB
> > > > > > >> > bulk-loading
> > > > > > >> > >>> > benefits.
> > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > I think the "use dedicated threads for standby" is the
> > > more
> > > > > > >> promising
> > > > > > >> > >>> end
> > > > > > >> > >>> > goal, especially since
> > > > > > >> > >>> > if we split restoration into "restoring tasks" then
> > > active and
> > > > > > >> > standbys
> > > > > > >> > >>> > share almost nothing. But
> > > > > > >> > >>> > that seems like follow-up work to the current KIP :)
> > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:31 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > > > > >> > >>> sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > Stateful tasks with logging disabled seem to be an
> > > > > interesting
> > > > > > >> edge
> > > > > > >> > >>> case.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > On the one hand,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > for balancing purposes they should be considered
> > > stateful
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > Guozhang pointed out
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > they are still "heavy" in IO costs. But for
> "catching
> > > up"
> > > > > > >> purposes,
> > > > > > >> > >>> ie
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > when allocating standby
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks that will become active tasks, they should be
> > > > > considered
> > > > > > >> > >>> stateless
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > as there is so
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > meaningful sense of their lag. We should never
> > allocate
> > > > > > standby
> > > > > > >> > >>> tasks for
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > them during the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > first rebalance, but should ensure they are evenly
> > > > > distributed
> > > > > > >> > across
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > instances. Maybe we
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > should split these into a third category -- after we
> > > assign
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> > >>> stateful
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks with logging, we
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > then distribute the set of logging-disabled stateful
> > > tasks
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > improve
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > balance, before lastly
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > distributing stateless tasks?
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > This actually leads into what I was just thinking,
> > > which is
> > > > > > >> that we
> > > > > > >> > >>> > really
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > should distinguish the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > "catch-up" standbys from normal standbys as well as
> > > > > > >> distinguishing
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > actively processing tasks
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > from active tasks that are still in the restore
> phase.
> > > It's
> > > > > > >> > somewhat
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > awkward that today, some
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > active tasks just start processing immediately while
> > > others
> > > > > > >> behave
> > > > > > >> > >>> more
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > like standby than active
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks for some time, before switching to real
> active.
> > > They
> > > > > > first
> > > > > > >> > use
> > > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > restoreConsumer, then
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > later only the "normal" consumer.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > However, this restore period is still distinct from
> > > normal
> > > > > > >> standbys
> > > > > > >> > >>> in a
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > lot of ways -- the code path
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > for restoring is different than for updating
> standbys,
> > > for
> > > > > > >> example
> > > > > > >> > >>> in how
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > long we block on #poll.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > So in addition to giving them their own name --
> let's
> > go
> > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > >>> restoring
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > task for now -- they really
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > do seem to deserve being their own distinct task. We
> > can
> > > > > > >> optimize
> > > > > > >> > >>> them
> > > > > > >> > >>> > for
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > efficient conversion
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > to active tasks since we know that's what they will
> > be.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > This resolves some of the awkwardness of dealing
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > >> special
> > > > > > >> > >>> case
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > mentioned above: we
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > find a balanced assignment of stateful and stateless
> > > tasks,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > >>> create
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > restoring tasks as needed.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > If logging is disabled, no restoring task is
> created.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:44 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > >> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> Regarding 3) above: I think for active task they
> > should
> > > > > still
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> considered
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful since the processor would still pay IO
> cost
> > > > > > accessing
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > store,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> but they would not have standby tasks?
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:49 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > > > >> bruno@confluent.io>
> > > > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Hi,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Thank you for the KIP!
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Some questions/comments:
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 1. I am wondering if the "stand-by" tasks that
> > catch
> > > up
> > > > > > state
> > > > > > >> > >>> before
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the active task is switched deserve its own name
> in
> > > this
> > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> > >>> maybe
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in the code. We have already stated that they are
> > not
> > > > > true
> > > > > > >> > >>> stand-by
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks, they are not configured through
> > > > > > >> `num.standby.replicas`,
> > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > maybe they have also other properties that
> > > distinguish
> > > > > them
> > > > > > >> from
> > > > > > >> > >>> true
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > stand-by tasks of which we are not aware yet. For
> > > > > example,
> > > > > > >> they
> > > > > > >> > >>> may be
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > prioritized differently than other tasks.
> > > Furthermore,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> name
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > "stand-by" does not really fit with the planned
> > > > > > >> functionality of
> > > > > > >> > >>> those
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks. In the following, I will call them false
> > > stand-by
> > > > > > >> tasks.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 2. Did you consider to trigger the probing
> > > rebalances not
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > >> > >>> regular
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > time intervals but when the false stand-by tasks
> > > reach an
> > > > > > >> > >>> acceptable
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > lag? If you did consider, could you add a
> paragraph
> > > why
> > > > > you
> > > > > > >> > >>> rejected
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > this idea to the "Rejected Alternatives" section.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 3. Are tasks that solely contain stores with
> > disabled
> > > > > > logging
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > classified as stateful or stateless in the
> > > algorithm? I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > >> > >>> guess
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > stateless, although if possible they should be
> > > assigned
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > >>> same
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > instance they had run before the rebalance. As
> far
> > > as I
> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> see
> > > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > special case is not handled in the algorithm.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Best,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Bruno
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:24 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > >> > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 1. Sounds good, just wanted to clarify; and it
> > may
> > > > > worth
> > > > > > >> > >>> documenting
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> it
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > so
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > that users would not be surprised when
> monitoring
> > > their
> > > > > > >> > >>> footprint.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 2. Hmm I see... I think the trade-off can be
> > > described
> > > > > as
> > > > > > >> "how
> > > > > > >> > >>> much
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance would bother you to be willing to pay
> > > another
> > > > > > >> > >>> rebalance,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> along
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > with potentially more restoration lag", and the
> > > current
> > > > > > >> > >>> definition
> > > > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > rebalance_factor can be considered as a rough
> > > > > measurement
> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >> > >>> that
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance. Of course one can argue that a finer
> > > grained
> > > > > > >> > >>> measurement
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> could
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > be "resource footprint" like CPU / storage of
> > each
> > > > > > instance
> > > > > > >> > >>> like we
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> have
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > Kafka broker auto balancing tools, but I'd
> prefer
> > > not
> > > > > > doing
> > > > > > >> > >>> that as
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> part
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > of
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the library but more as an operational tool in
> > the
> > > > > > future.
> > > > > > >> On
> > > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> other
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > hand, I've seen stateful and stateless tasks
> > having
> > > > > very
> > > > > > >> > >>> different
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> load,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > and sometimes the only bottleneck of a Streams
> > app
> > > is
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > >> one
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > sub-topology and whoever gets tasks of that
> > > > > sub-topology
> > > > > > >> > become
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> hotspot
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > (and that's why our algorithm tries to balance
> > per
> > > > > > >> > sub-topology
> > > > > > >> > >>> as
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> well),
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > so maybe we can just consider stateful tasks
> when
> > > > > > >> calculating
> > > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> factor
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > as a very brute force heuristic?
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 3.a. Thinking about this a bit more, maybe it's
> > > better
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> try
> > > > > > >> > >>> to
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> tackle
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > an
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > unseen enemy just yet, and observe if it really
> > > emerges
> > > > > > >> later,
> > > > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > > > >> > >>> > by
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > then
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > we may have other ways to not starving the
> > standby
> > > > > tasks,
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> example, by
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or
> even
> > > > > consider
> > > > > > >> > having
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> higher
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > priority for standby than active so that we
> > always
> > > try
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > >>> caught up
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > standby
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > first, then process active; and if active's
> > lagging
> > > > > > >> compared
> > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > log-end-offset is increasing then we should
> > > increase
> > > > > > >> capacity,
> > > > > > >> > >>> etc
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> etc.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 4. Actually with KIP-429 this may not be the
> > case:
> > > we
> > > > > may
> > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > >> > >>> call
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > onPartitionsRevoked prior to rebalance any more
> > so
> > > > > would
> > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > >> > >>> transit
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > state
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > to PARTITIONS_REVOKED, and hence not cause the
> > > state of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > >>> instance
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> to
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > be
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > REBALANCING. In other words, even if a instance
> > is
> > > > > > >> undergoing
> > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> rebalance
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > it's state may still be RUNNING and it may
> still
> > be
> > > > > > >> processing
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> records at
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the same time.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:14 PM John Roesler <
> > > > > > >> > john@confluent.io
> > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks for the review!
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 1. Yes, even with `num.standby.replicas :=
> 0`,
> > we
> > > > > will
> > > > > > >> still
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > temporarily
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allocate standby tasks to accomplish a
> > > no-downtime
> > > > > task
> > > > > > >> > >>> migration.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Although, I'd argue that this doesn't really
> > > violate
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > >>> config,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > as
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > task isn't a true hot standby. As soon as it
> > > catches
> > > > > > up,
> > > > > > >> > we'll
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > rebalance
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > again, that task will become active, and the
> > > original
> > > > > > >> > instance
> > > > > > >> > >>> > that
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > hosted
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the active task will no longer have the task
> > > assigned
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > >> > all.
> > > > > > >> > >>> Once
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > stateDirCleaner kicks in, we'll free the disk
> > > space
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > >> it,
> > > > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > return to
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the steady-state of having just one copy of
> the
> > > task
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > cluster.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > We can of course do without this, but I feel
> > the
> > > > > > current
> > > > > > >> > >>> proposal
> > > > > > >> > >>> > is
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > operationally preferable, since it doesn't
> make
> > > > > > >> configuring
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > hot-standbys a
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > pre-requisite for fast rebalances.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 2. Yes, I think your interpretation is what
> we
> > > > > > intended.
> > > > > > >> The
> > > > > > >> > >>> > default
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor would be 1, as it is
> implicitly
> > > today.
> > > > > > >> What
> > > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> does is
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allows operators to trade off less balanced
> > > > > assignments
> > > > > > >> > >>> against
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> fewer
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > rebalances. If you have lots of space
> capacity
> > in
> > > > > your
> > > > > > >> > >>> instances,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> this
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > may
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be a perfectly fine tradeoff, and you may
> > prefer
> > > for
> > > > > > >> Streams
> > > > > > >> > >>> not
> > > > > > >> > >>> > to
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > bother
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > streaming GBs of data from the broker in
> > pursuit
> > > of
> > > > > > >> perfect
> > > > > > >> > >>> > balance.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Not
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > married to this configuration, though. It was
> > > > > inspired
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> related
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > work
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > research we did.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3. I'll take a look
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3a. I think this is a good idea. I'd classify
> > it
> > > as a
> > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > >> > >>> grey
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > failure
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > detection. It may make more sense to tackle
> > grey
> > > > > > >> failures as
> > > > > > >> > >>> part
> > > > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > heartbeat protocol (as I POCed here:
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/7096/files
> > > ).
> > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 4. Good catch! I didn't think about that
> > before.
> > > > > > Looking
> > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > >> > >>> > now,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > though,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > I wonder if we're actually protected already.
> > The
> > > > > > >> > >>> stateDirCleaner
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > only executes if the instance is in RUNNING
> > > state,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > KIP-441
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > proposes to
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > use "probing rebalances" to report task lag.
> > > Hence,
> > > > > > >> during
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> window
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > between when the instance reports a lag and
> the
> > > > > > assignor
> > > > > > >> > >>> makes a
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > decision
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > about it, the instance should remain in
> > > REBALANCING
> > > > > > >> state,
> > > > > > >> > >>> right?
> > > > > > >> > >>> > If
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > so,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > then this should prevent the race condition.
> If
> > > not,
> > > > > > >> then we
> > > > > > >> > >>> do
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> indeed
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > need
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > to do something about it.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 5. Good idea. I think that today, you can
> only
> > > see
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > >>> consumer
> > > > > > >> > >>> > lag,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > which
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > is a poor substitute. I'll add some metrics
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > >> proposal.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks again for the comments!
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > -John
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:27 PM Guozhang Wang
> <
> > > > > > >> > >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Hello Sophie,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I left some
> > > comments
> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > >>> wiki
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > and I
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > think I'm still not very clear on a couple
> or
> > > > > those:
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 1. With this proposal, does that mean with
> > > > > > >> > >>> num.standby.replicas
> > > > > > >> > >>> > ==
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 0, we
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > may sometimes still have some standby tasks
> > > which
> > > > > may
> > > > > > >> > >>> violate
> > > > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > config?
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 2. I think I understand the rationale to
> > > consider
> > > > > > lags
> > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > >> > >>> is
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> below
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > specified threshold to be equal, rather
> than
> > > still
> > > > > > >> > >>> considering
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> 5000
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > is
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > better than 5001 -- we do not want to
> > > > > "over-optimize"
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> potentially
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > falls
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > into endless rebalances back and forth.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > But I'm not clear about the rationale of
> the
> > > second
> > > > > > >> > >>> parameter of
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > constrainedBalancedAssignment(StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > balance_factor):
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Does that mean, e.g. with balance_factor of
> > 3,
> > > we'd
> > > > > > >> > >>> consider two
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > assignments one resulting balance_factor 0
> > and
> > > one
> > > > > > >> > resulting
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3 to be equally optimized assignment and
> > > therefore
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > >> > "stop
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> early"?
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > This
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > was not very convincing to me :P
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3. There are a couple of minor comments
> about
> > > the
> > > > > > >> > algorithm
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > left
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > on
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the wiki page since it needs to refer to
> the
> > > exact
> > > > > > line
> > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > >> > >>> > better
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > displayed there.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3.a Another wild thought about the
> threshold
> > > > > itself:
> > > > > > >> today
> > > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > assignment
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > itself is memoryless, so we would not know
> if
> > > the
> > > > > > >> reported
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLag`
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > itself
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > is increasing or decreasing even if the
> > current
> > > > > value
> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > >> > >>> under
> > > > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > threshold. I wonder if it worthy to make
> it a
> > > bit
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> complicated to
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > track
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > task lag trend at the assignor? Practically
> > it
> > > may
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> > >>> very
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > uncommon
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that stand-by tasks are not keeping up due
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > fact
> > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > >> > >>> > other
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > active
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > tasks hosted on the same thread is starving
> > the
> > > > > > standby
> > > > > > >> > >>> tasks.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 4. There's a potential race condition risk
> > when
> > > > > > >> reporting
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLags`
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > subscription: right after reporting it to
> the
> > > > > leader,
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > cleanup
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > kicks in and deletes the state directory.
> If
> > > the
> > > > > task
> > > > > > >> was
> > > > > > >> > >>> > assigned
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > to the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > host it would cause it to restore from
> > > beginning
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > >>> effectively
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > make the
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > seemingly optimized assignment very
> > > sub-optimal.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > To be on the safer side we should consider
> > > either
> > > > > > prune
> > > > > > >> > out
> > > > > > >> > >>> > those
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that are "close to be cleaned up" in the
> > > > > > subscription,
> > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > >> > we
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> should
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > delay
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the cleanup right after we've included them
> > in
> > > the
> > > > > > >> > >>> subscription
> > > > > > >> > >>> > in
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > case
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > they are been selected as assigned tasks by
> > the
> > > > > > >> assignor.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 5. This is a meta comment: I think it would
> > be
> > > > > > helpful
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> > >>> add
> > > > > > >> > >>> > some
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > user
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > visibility on the standby tasks lagging as
> > > well,
> > > > > via
> > > > > > >> > >>> metrics for
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > example.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Today it is hard for us to observe how far
> > are
> > > our
> > > > > > >> current
> > > > > > >> > >>> > standby
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > compared to the active tasks and whether
> that
> > > lag
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> being
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > increasing or
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > decreasing. As a follow-up task, for
> example,
> > > the
> > > > > > >> > rebalance
> > > > > > >> > >>> > should
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > also
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > triggered if we realize that some standby
> > > task's
> > > > > lag
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > >>> > increasing
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > indefinitely means that it cannot keep up
> > > (which is
> > > > > > >> > another
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> indicator
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > either you need to add more resources with
> > the
> > > > > > >> > num.standbys
> > > > > > >> > >>> or
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> your
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > are
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > still not balanced enough).
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:32 PM Sophie
> > > Blee-Goldman
> > > > > <
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Hey all,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > I'd like to kick off discussion on
> KIP-441,
> > > aimed
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > >>> long
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > restore
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > times
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > in Streams during which further active
> > > processing
> > > > > > >> and IQ
> > > > > > >> > >>> are
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > blocked.
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Please give it a read and let us know
> your
> > > > > thoughts
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Sophie
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > --
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> --
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > >> > >>> --
> > > > > > >> > >>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams

Posted by Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.

Hello John,

Your reasoning about non-logged state store looks good to me. But I think
it worth considering two cases differently: 1) a task's all state stores
are non-logged, 2) a task has non-logged state store but also have other
logged state store.

For 1), we should not have any standbys for such tasks at all, but it is
not the same as a stateless task, because the only active task could report
a lag of "0" while all others should logically report the lag as infinity
(of course, they would not encode such value).

For 2), it is sort of the same to a normal case: active task reporting a
lag of 0 while standby task reporting a lag summing all other logged state
stores, meaning that the non-logged state store does not matter in our
assignment semantics.

The rationale I had is to effectively favor stickiness for those tasks in
case 1) than arbitrarily reassign them even though it is true that for a
non-logged store there's no durability and hence restoration guarantees
anyways from Streams. Then algorithmically we may consider assigning tasks
with descending order of the number of instances reporting lags for it,
then for such tasks there's always one candidate reporting a lag of 0, and
assigning them to any instance does not actually change the cumulated total
lag either. At that time we can decide "if it is still within load balance
factor, then let's respect stickiness, otherwise it's free to move". WDYT?


Guozhang

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:

> Hey Bruno,
>
> Thanks for taking another look. Some quick responses:
>
> 1) It just means the number of offsets in the topic. E.g., the LSO is 100,
> but the first offset is 40 due to retention, so there are 60 offsets in the
> topic. Further, the lag on that topic would be considered to be 60 for any
> task that hadn't previously done any work on it.
>
> 2) This is undecidable in general. I.e., there's no way we can know whether
> the store is remote or not, and hence whether we can freely assign it to
> another instance, or whether we have to keep it on the same instance.
> However, there are a couple of reasons to go ahead and assume we have the
> freedom to move such tasks.
> * We know that nothing can prevent the loss of an instance in a cluster
> (I.e., this is true of all cloud environments, as well as any managed
> virtualized cluster like mesos or kubernetes), so any Streams program that
> makes use of non-remote, non-logged state is doomed to lose its state when
> it loses an instance.
> * If we take on a restriction that we cannot move such state between
> instances, we'd become overconstrained very quickly. Effectively, if you
> made use of non-logged stores, and we didn't assume freedom of movement,
> then we couldn't make use of any new instances in your cluster.
> * On the other hand, if we optimistically assume we can't move state, but
> only reassign it when we lose an instance, then we're supporting
> non-deterministic logic, because the program would produce different
> results, depending on whether you lost a node during the execution or not.
> 2b) That last point goes along with your side note. I'm not sure if we
> should bother dropping such state on every reassignment, though. It seems
> to be undefined territory enough that we can just do the simplest thing and
> assume people have made their own (external) provisions for durability.
> I.e., when we say "non-logged", we mean that it doesn't make use of _our_
> durability mechanism. I'm arguing that the only sane assumption is that
> such folks have opted to use their own durability measures, and we should
> just assume it works with no special considerations in the assignment
> algorithm.
>
> 3) Good catch! I've fixed it.
>
> Thanks again!
> -John
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:09 AM Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > 1) What do you mean with "full set of offsets in the topic"? Is this
> > the sum of all offsets of the changelog partitions of the task?
> >
> > 2) I am not sure whether non-logged stateful tasks should be
> > effectively treated as stateless tasks during assignment. First we
> > need to decide whether a non-logged stateful task should preferably be
> > assigned to the same instance on which it just run in order to
> > continue to use its state or not.
> >
> > 3) In the example, you define stand-by tasks {S1, S2, ...} but never
> > use them, because below you use a dedicated row for stand-by tasks.
> >
> > As a side note to 2) since it is not directly related to this KIP: We
> > should decide if we want to avoid the possible non-determinism
> > introduced by non-logged stores or not. That is, if an instance hosts
> > a task with non-logged stores then we can have two cases after the
> > next rebalance: a) the task stays on the same instance and continues
> > to use the same state store as used so far or b) the task is assigned
> > to another instance and it starts an empty state store. The produced
> > results for these two cases might differ. To avoid the nondeterminism,
> > non-logged state stores would need to be wiped out before assignment.
> > Then the question arises, how the removal of non-logged state stores
> > before assignment would affect backward-compatibility.
> >
> > Best,
> > Bruno
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:40 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Guozhang,
> > >
> > > > My impression from your previous email is that inside the algorithm
> > when
> > > we
> > > are "filling" them to instances some deterministic logic would be used
> to
> > > avoid the above case, is that correct?
> > >
> > > Yes, that was my plan, but I didn't formalize it. There was a
> requirement
> > > that the assignment algorithm must not produce a new assignment if the
> > > current assignment is already balanced, so at the least, any thrashing
> > > would be restricted to the "balancing" phase while tasks are moving
> > around
> > > the cluster.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I think it would be good to say that we'll "try to" produce
> > stable
> > > assignments, so I've added a "should" clause to the assignment spec:
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-AssignmentAlgorithm
> > >
> > > For example, we would sort the stateless tasks and available instances
> > > before assigning them, so that the stateless task assignment would
> mostly
> > > stay stable between assignments, modulo the compute capacity of the
> > > instances changing a little as active stateful tasks get assigned in
> more
> > > balanced ways.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -John
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:55 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello John,
> > > >
> > > > That sounds reasonable. Just double checked the code that with
> logging
> > > > disabled the corresponding checkpoint file would not contain any
> > values,
> > > > just like a stateless task. So I think treating them logically the
> > same is
> > > > fine.
> > > >
> > > > Guozhang
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi again, Guozhang,
> > > > >
> > > > > While writing up the section on stateless tasks (
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statelesstasks
> > > > > ),
> > > > > I reconsidered whether stateful, but non-logged, tasks should
> > actually
> > > > > report a lag of zero, versus not reporting any lag. By the
> > definition of
> > > > > the "StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates" function, the leader would
> > compute
> > > > a
> > > > > lag of zero for these tasks anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, I think the same reasoning that I supplied you for
> > stateless
> > > > > tasks applies, since the member and leader will agree on a lag of
> > zero
> > > > > anyway, we can avoid adding them to the "Task Lags" map, and save
> > some
> > > > > bytes in the JoinGroup request. This would be especially beneficial
> > in an
> > > > > application that uses remote stores for _all_ its state stores, it
> > would
> > > > > have an extremely lightweight JoinGroup request, with no task lags
> at
> > > > all.
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > -John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:17 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Guozhang.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Side note: I noticed on another pass over the discussion that
> I'd
> > > > missed
> > > > > > addressing your comment about the potential race condition
> between
> > > > state
> > > > > > cleanup and lag-based assignment. I've added a solution to the
> > > > proposal:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Racebetweenassignmentandstatecleanup
> > > > > > )
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the JoinGroup (SubscriptionInfo) metadata, stateless tasks are
> > not
> > > > > > represented at all. This should save us some bytes in the request
> > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > If we treated them like non-logged stateful tasks and reported a
> > lag of
> > > > > 0,
> > > > > > the only difference is that the assignor would be able to tell
> > which
> > > > > > members previously hosted that stateless task.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to make a simplifying assumption that stateless tasks
> can
> > just
> > > > > be
> > > > > > freely reassigned with no regard to stickiness at all, without
> > > > impacting
> > > > > > performance. This is almost true. In fact, while assigned a
> > stateless
> > > > > task,
> > > > > > a member fetches batches of records from the broker, so if we
> move
> > the
> > > > > > stateless task assignment, this buffered input is wasted and just
> > gets
> > > > > > dropped.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, we won't be moving the stateless tasks around all the
> time
> > > > (just
> > > > > > during rebalances), and we have the requirement that the
> assigment
> > > > > > algorithm must stabilize to guard against perpetually shuffling a
> > > > > stateless
> > > > > > task from one node to another. So, my hope is that this small
> > amount of
> > > > > > inefficiency would not be a performance-dominating factor. In
> > exchange,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > gain the opportunity for the assignment algorithm to use the
> > stateless
> > > > > > tasks as "filler" during unbalanced assignments. For example, if
> > there
> > > > > is a
> > > > > > node that is just warming up with several standby tasks, maybe
> the
> > > > > > assignment can give more stateless tasks to that node to balance
> > the
> > > > > > computational load across the cluster.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's worth noting that such an assignment would still not be
> > considered
> > > > > > "balanced", so the ultimately balanced final state of the
> > assignment
> > > > > (after
> > > > > > task movements) would still have the desired property that each
> > > > stateful
> > > > > > and stateless task is evenly spread across the cluster.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does that seem reasonable?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > -John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:22 AM Guozhang Wang <
> wangguoz@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hello John,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I've made another pass on the wiki page again, overall LGTM. One
> > meta
> > > > > >> comment about the "stateless" tasks: how do we represent them in
> > the
> > > > > >> metadata? Are they just treated as stateful tasks with logging
> > > > disabled,
> > > > > >> or
> > > > > >> are specially handled? It is not very clear in the description.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Guozhang
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:43 AM John Roesler <john@confluent.io
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > I have also specifically called out that the assignment must
> > achieve
> > > > > >> both
> > > > > >> > "instance" and "task" balance:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Defining%22balance%22
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I've also addressed the problem of state stores with logging
> > > > disabled:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statewithloggingdisabled
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I believe this addresses all the concerns that have been
> raised
> > to
> > > > > date.
> > > > > >> > Apologies if I've overlooked one of your concerns.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Please give the KIP another read and let me know of any
> further
> > > > > >> thoughts!
> > > > > >> > Hopefully, we can start the voting on this KIP by the end of
> the
> > > > week.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > -John
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:16 PM John Roesler <
> john@confluent.io
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > In response to Bruno's concern #2, I've also added that
> > section to
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > "Rejected Alternatives" section.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Additionally, after reviewing some other assignment papers,
> > I've
> > > > > >> > developed
> > > > > >> > > the concern that specifying which "phases" the assignment
> > > > algorithm
> > > > > >> > should
> > > > > >> > > have, or indeed the logic of it at all, might be a mistake
> > that
> > > > > >> > > over-constrains our ability to write an optimal algorithm.
> > > > > Therefore,
> > > > > >> > I've
> > > > > >> > > also refactored the KIP to just describe the protocol, and
> > specify
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > requirements for the assignment algorithm, but not its exact
> > > > > behavior
> > > > > >> at
> > > > > >> > > all.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > -John
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:13 PM John Roesler <
> > john@confluent.io>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >> Hi All,
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> Thanks for the discussion. I've been considering the idea
> of
> > > > giving
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >> "catching up" tasks a different name/role. I was in favor
> > > > > initially,
> > > > > >> but
> > > > > >> > >> after working though some details, I think it causes some
> > > > problems,
> > > > > >> > which
> > > > > >> > >> I've written up in the "rejected alternatives" part of the
> > KIP:
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Addinganewkindoftask(%22moving%22,%22recovering%22,%22learner%22)fortaskmovements
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> Please give it a read and let me know what you think.
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> > >> -John
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:57 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>> I think I agree with you Sophie. My gut feeling is that 1)
> > it
> > > > > should
> > > > > >> > not
> > > > > >> > >>> be
> > > > > >> > >>> the major concern in assignor's algorithm for standby
> tasks
> > not
> > > > > >> > catching
> > > > > >> > >>> up, but rather be tackled in different modules, and 2) a
> > lot of
> > > > > >> > >>> optimization can be down at the stream thread itself, like
> > > > > dedicated
> > > > > >> > >>> threading and larger batching, or even complicated
> > scheduling
> > > > > >> > mechanisms
> > > > > >> > >>> between running, restoring and standby tasks. In anyways,
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > we
> > > > > >> > can
> > > > > >> > >>> take this out of the scope of KIP-441 for now.
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>> Guozhang
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:48 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > > > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>> > > we may have other ways to not starving the standby
> > tasks,
> > > > for
> > > > > >> > >>> example, by
> > > > > >> > >>> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or even
> > consider
> > > > > having
> > > > > >> > >>> > *higher> priority for standby than active* so that we
> > always
> > > > try
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > >>> caught
> > > > > >> > >>> > up standby
> > > > > >> > >>> > > first, then process active
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > This is an interesting idea, but seems likely to get in
> > the
> > > > way
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > original idea of this KIP
> > > > > >> > >>> > -- if we always process standby tasks first, then if we
> > are
> > > > > >> assigned
> > > > > >> > a
> > > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > > >> > >>> > standby task we
> > > > > >> > >>> > will have to wait for it to catch up completely before
> > > > > processing
> > > > > >> any
> > > > > >> > >>> > active tasks! That's
> > > > > >> > >>> > even worse than the situation this KIP is trying to help
> > with,
> > > > > >> since
> > > > > >> > a
> > > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > > >> > >>> > standby task has to
> > > > > >> > >>> > restore from 0 (whereas an active task at least can take
> > over
> > > > > from
> > > > > >> > >>> wherever
> > > > > >> > >>> > the standby was).
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > During restoration -- while there exist any restoring
> > tasks
> > > > -- I
> > > > > >> > think
> > > > > >> > >>> it's
> > > > > >> > >>> > reasonable to de-prioritize the
> > > > > >> > >>> > standby tasks and just process restoring and active
> tasks
> > so
> > > > > both
> > > > > >> can
> > > > > >> > >>> make
> > > > > >> > >>> > progress. But we should
> > > > > >> > >>> > let them catch up afterwards somehow -- maybe we can
> apply
> > > > some
> > > > > >> kind
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > >>> > heuristic, like "if we haven't
> > > > > >> > >>> > processed standbys for X iterations, or Y milliseconds,
> > do so
> > > > > >> now."
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > Actually, it might even be beneficial to avoid
> processing
> > > > > >> standbys a
> > > > > >> > >>> record
> > > > > >> > >>> > or two at a time and instead
> > > > > >> > >>> > wait for a large enough batch to build up for the
> RocksDB
> > > > > >> > bulk-loading
> > > > > >> > >>> > benefits.
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > I think the "use dedicated threads for standby" is the
> > more
> > > > > >> promising
> > > > > >> > >>> end
> > > > > >> > >>> > goal, especially since
> > > > > >> > >>> > if we split restoration into "restoring tasks" then
> > active and
> > > > > >> > standbys
> > > > > >> > >>> > share almost nothing. But
> > > > > >> > >>> > that seems like follow-up work to the current KIP :)
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:31 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > > > >> > >>> sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > > Stateful tasks with logging disabled seem to be an
> > > > interesting
> > > > > >> edge
> > > > > >> > >>> case.
> > > > > >> > >>> > > On the one hand,
> > > > > >> > >>> > > for balancing purposes they should be considered
> > stateful
> > > > > since
> > > > > >> as
> > > > > >> > >>> > > Guozhang pointed out
> > > > > >> > >>> > > they are still "heavy" in IO costs. But for "catching
> > up"
> > > > > >> purposes,
> > > > > >> > >>> ie
> > > > > >> > >>> > > when allocating standby
> > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks that will become active tasks, they should be
> > > > considered
> > > > > >> > >>> stateless
> > > > > >> > >>> > > as there is so
> > > > > >> > >>> > > meaningful sense of their lag. We should never
> allocate
> > > > > standby
> > > > > >> > >>> tasks for
> > > > > >> > >>> > > them during the
> > > > > >> > >>> > > first rebalance, but should ensure they are evenly
> > > > distributed
> > > > > >> > across
> > > > > >> > >>> > > instances. Maybe we
> > > > > >> > >>> > > should split these into a third category -- after we
> > assign
> > > > > all
> > > > > >> > >>> stateful
> > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks with logging, we
> > > > > >> > >>> > > then distribute the set of logging-disabled stateful
> > tasks
> > > > to
> > > > > >> > improve
> > > > > >> > >>> > > balance, before lastly
> > > > > >> > >>> > > distributing stateless tasks?
> > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > > This actually leads into what I was just thinking,
> > which is
> > > > > >> that we
> > > > > >> > >>> > really
> > > > > >> > >>> > > should distinguish the
> > > > > >> > >>> > > "catch-up" standbys from normal standbys as well as
> > > > > >> distinguishing
> > > > > >> > >>> > > actively processing tasks
> > > > > >> > >>> > > from active tasks that are still in the restore phase.
> > It's
> > > > > >> > somewhat
> > > > > >> > >>> > > awkward that today, some
> > > > > >> > >>> > > active tasks just start processing immediately while
> > others
> > > > > >> behave
> > > > > >> > >>> more
> > > > > >> > >>> > > like standby than active
> > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks for some time, before switching to real active.
> > They
> > > > > first
> > > > > >> > use
> > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > > restoreConsumer, then
> > > > > >> > >>> > > later only the "normal" consumer.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > > However, this restore period is still distinct from
> > normal
> > > > > >> standbys
> > > > > >> > >>> in a
> > > > > >> > >>> > > lot of ways -- the code path
> > > > > >> > >>> > > for restoring is different than for updating standbys,
> > for
> > > > > >> example
> > > > > >> > >>> in how
> > > > > >> > >>> > > long we block on #poll.
> > > > > >> > >>> > > So in addition to giving them their own name -- let's
> go
> > > > with
> > > > > >> > >>> restoring
> > > > > >> > >>> > > task for now -- they really
> > > > > >> > >>> > > do seem to deserve being their own distinct task. We
> can
> > > > > >> optimize
> > > > > >> > >>> them
> > > > > >> > >>> > for
> > > > > >> > >>> > > efficient conversion
> > > > > >> > >>> > > to active tasks since we know that's what they will
> be.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > > This resolves some of the awkwardness of dealing with
> > the
> > > > > >> special
> > > > > >> > >>> case
> > > > > >> > >>> > > mentioned above: we
> > > > > >> > >>> > > find a balanced assignment of stateful and stateless
> > tasks,
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > >>> create
> > > > > >> > >>> > > restoring tasks as needed.
> > > > > >> > >>> > > If logging is disabled, no restoring task is created.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:44 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > >> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> Regarding 3) above: I think for active task they
> should
> > > > still
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> considered
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful since the processor would still pay IO cost
> > > > > accessing
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > store,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> but they would not have standby tasks?
> > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:49 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > > >> bruno@confluent.io>
> > > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Hi,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Thank you for the KIP!
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Some questions/comments:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 1. I am wondering if the "stand-by" tasks that
> catch
> > up
> > > > > state
> > > > > >> > >>> before
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the active task is switched deserve its own name in
> > this
> > > > > KIP
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > >>> maybe
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in the code. We have already stated that they are
> not
> > > > true
> > > > > >> > >>> stand-by
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks, they are not configured through
> > > > > >> `num.standby.replicas`,
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > maybe they have also other properties that
> > distinguish
> > > > them
> > > > > >> from
> > > > > >> > >>> true
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > stand-by tasks of which we are not aware yet. For
> > > > example,
> > > > > >> they
> > > > > >> > >>> may be
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > prioritized differently than other tasks.
> > Furthermore,
> > > > the
> > > > > >> name
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > "stand-by" does not really fit with the planned
> > > > > >> functionality of
> > > > > >> > >>> those
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks. In the following, I will call them false
> > stand-by
> > > > > >> tasks.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 2. Did you consider to trigger the probing
> > rebalances not
> > > > > at
> > > > > >> > >>> regular
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > time intervals but when the false stand-by tasks
> > reach an
> > > > > >> > >>> acceptable
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > lag? If you did consider, could you add a paragraph
> > why
> > > > you
> > > > > >> > >>> rejected
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > this idea to the "Rejected Alternatives" section.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 3. Are tasks that solely contain stores with
> disabled
> > > > > logging
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > classified as stateful or stateless in the
> > algorithm? I
> > > > > would
> > > > > >> > >>> guess
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > stateless, although if possible they should be
> > assigned
> > > > to
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> same
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > instance they had run before the rebalance. As far
> > as I
> > > > can
> > > > > >> see
> > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > special case is not handled in the algorithm.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Best,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Bruno
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:24 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > >> > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 1. Sounds good, just wanted to clarify; and it
> may
> > > > worth
> > > > > >> > >>> documenting
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> it
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > so
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > that users would not be surprised when monitoring
> > their
> > > > > >> > >>> footprint.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 2. Hmm I see... I think the trade-off can be
> > described
> > > > as
> > > > > >> "how
> > > > > >> > >>> much
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance would bother you to be willing to pay
> > another
> > > > > >> > >>> rebalance,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> along
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > with potentially more restoration lag", and the
> > current
> > > > > >> > >>> definition
> > > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > rebalance_factor can be considered as a rough
> > > > measurement
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> > >>> that
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance. Of course one can argue that a finer
> > grained
> > > > > >> > >>> measurement
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> could
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > be "resource footprint" like CPU / storage of
> each
> > > > > instance
> > > > > >> > >>> like we
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> have
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > Kafka broker auto balancing tools, but I'd prefer
> > not
> > > > > doing
> > > > > >> > >>> that as
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> part
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > of
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the library but more as an operational tool in
> the
> > > > > future.
> > > > > >> On
> > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> other
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > hand, I've seen stateful and stateless tasks
> having
> > > > very
> > > > > >> > >>> different
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> load,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > and sometimes the only bottleneck of a Streams
> app
> > is
> > > > > just
> > > > > >> one
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > sub-topology and whoever gets tasks of that
> > > > sub-topology
> > > > > >> > become
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> hotspot
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > (and that's why our algorithm tries to balance
> per
> > > > > >> > sub-topology
> > > > > >> > >>> as
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> well),
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > so maybe we can just consider stateful tasks when
> > > > > >> calculating
> > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> factor
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > as a very brute force heuristic?
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 3.a. Thinking about this a bit more, maybe it's
> > better
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> try
> > > > > >> > >>> to
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> tackle
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > an
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > unseen enemy just yet, and observe if it really
> > emerges
> > > > > >> later,
> > > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > > >> > >>> > by
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > then
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > we may have other ways to not starving the
> standby
> > > > tasks,
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> example, by
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or even
> > > > consider
> > > > > >> > having
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> higher
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > priority for standby than active so that we
> always
> > try
> > > > to
> > > > > >> > >>> caught up
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > standby
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > first, then process active; and if active's
> lagging
> > > > > >> compared
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > log-end-offset is increasing then we should
> > increase
> > > > > >> capacity,
> > > > > >> > >>> etc
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> etc.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 4. Actually with KIP-429 this may not be the
> case:
> > we
> > > > may
> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >> > >>> call
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > onPartitionsRevoked prior to rebalance any more
> so
> > > > would
> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >> > >>> transit
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > state
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > to PARTITIONS_REVOKED, and hence not cause the
> > state of
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > >>> instance
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> to
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > be
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > REBALANCING. In other words, even if a instance
> is
> > > > > >> undergoing
> > > > > >> > a
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> rebalance
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > it's state may still be RUNNING and it may still
> be
> > > > > >> processing
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> records at
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the same time.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:14 PM John Roesler <
> > > > > >> > john@confluent.io
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks for the review!
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 1. Yes, even with `num.standby.replicas := 0`,
> we
> > > > will
> > > > > >> still
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > temporarily
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allocate standby tasks to accomplish a
> > no-downtime
> > > > task
> > > > > >> > >>> migration.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Although, I'd argue that this doesn't really
> > violate
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > >>> config,
> > > > > >> > >>> > as
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > task isn't a true hot standby. As soon as it
> > catches
> > > > > up,
> > > > > >> > we'll
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > rebalance
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > again, that task will become active, and the
> > original
> > > > > >> > instance
> > > > > >> > >>> > that
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > hosted
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the active task will no longer have the task
> > assigned
> > > > > at
> > > > > >> > all.
> > > > > >> > >>> Once
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > stateDirCleaner kicks in, we'll free the disk
> > space
> > > > > from
> > > > > >> it,
> > > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > return to
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the steady-state of having just one copy of the
> > task
> > > > in
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > cluster.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > We can of course do without this, but I feel
> the
> > > > > current
> > > > > >> > >>> proposal
> > > > > >> > >>> > is
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > operationally preferable, since it doesn't make
> > > > > >> configuring
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > hot-standbys a
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > pre-requisite for fast rebalances.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 2. Yes, I think your interpretation is what we
> > > > > intended.
> > > > > >> The
> > > > > >> > >>> > default
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor would be 1, as it is implicitly
> > today.
> > > > > >> What
> > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> does is
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allows operators to trade off less balanced
> > > > assignments
> > > > > >> > >>> against
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> fewer
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > rebalances. If you have lots of space capacity
> in
> > > > your
> > > > > >> > >>> instances,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> this
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > may
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be a perfectly fine tradeoff, and you may
> prefer
> > for
> > > > > >> Streams
> > > > > >> > >>> not
> > > > > >> > >>> > to
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > bother
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > streaming GBs of data from the broker in
> pursuit
> > of
> > > > > >> perfect
> > > > > >> > >>> > balance.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Not
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > married to this configuration, though. It was
> > > > inspired
> > > > > by
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> related
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > work
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > research we did.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3. I'll take a look
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3a. I think this is a good idea. I'd classify
> it
> > as a
> > > > > >> type
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > >>> grey
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > failure
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > detection. It may make more sense to tackle
> grey
> > > > > >> failures as
> > > > > >> > >>> part
> > > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > heartbeat protocol (as I POCed here:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/7096/files
> > ).
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 4. Good catch! I didn't think about that
> before.
> > > > > Looking
> > > > > >> at
> > > > > >> > it
> > > > > >> > >>> > now,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > though,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > I wonder if we're actually protected already.
> The
> > > > > >> > >>> stateDirCleaner
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > only executes if the instance is in RUNNING
> > state,
> > > > and
> > > > > >> > KIP-441
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > proposes to
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > use "probing rebalances" to report task lag.
> > Hence,
> > > > > >> during
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> window
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > between when the instance reports a lag and the
> > > > > assignor
> > > > > >> > >>> makes a
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > decision
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > about it, the instance should remain in
> > REBALANCING
> > > > > >> state,
> > > > > >> > >>> right?
> > > > > >> > >>> > If
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > so,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > then this should prevent the race condition. If
> > not,
> > > > > >> then we
> > > > > >> > >>> do
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> indeed
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > need
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > to do something about it.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 5. Good idea. I think that today, you can only
> > see
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > >>> consumer
> > > > > >> > >>> > lag,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > which
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > is a poor substitute. I'll add some metrics to
> > the
> > > > > >> proposal.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks again for the comments!
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > -John
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:27 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > >> > >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Hello Sophie,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I left some
> > comments
> > > > on
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> wiki
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > and I
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > think I'm still not very clear on a couple or
> > > > those:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 1. With this proposal, does that mean with
> > > > > >> > >>> num.standby.replicas
> > > > > >> > >>> > ==
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 0, we
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > may sometimes still have some standby tasks
> > which
> > > > may
> > > > > >> > >>> violate
> > > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > config?
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 2. I think I understand the rationale to
> > consider
> > > > > lags
> > > > > >> > that
> > > > > >> > >>> is
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> below
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > specified threshold to be equal, rather than
> > still
> > > > > >> > >>> considering
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> 5000
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > is
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > better than 5001 -- we do not want to
> > > > "over-optimize"
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> potentially
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > falls
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > into endless rebalances back and forth.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > But I'm not clear about the rationale of the
> > second
> > > > > >> > >>> parameter of
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > constrainedBalancedAssignment(StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > balance_factor):
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Does that mean, e.g. with balance_factor of
> 3,
> > we'd
> > > > > >> > >>> consider two
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > assignments one resulting balance_factor 0
> and
> > one
> > > > > >> > resulting
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3 to be equally optimized assignment and
> > therefore
> > > > > may
> > > > > >> > "stop
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> early"?
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > This
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > was not very convincing to me :P
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3. There are a couple of minor comments about
> > the
> > > > > >> > algorithm
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > left
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > on
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the wiki page since it needs to refer to the
> > exact
> > > > > line
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > >>> > better
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > displayed there.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3.a Another wild thought about the threshold
> > > > itself:
> > > > > >> today
> > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > assignment
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > itself is memoryless, so we would not know if
> > the
> > > > > >> reported
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLag`
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > itself
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > is increasing or decreasing even if the
> current
> > > > value
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> > >>> under
> > > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > threshold. I wonder if it worthy to make it a
> > bit
> > > > > more
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> complicated to
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > track
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > task lag trend at the assignor? Practically
> it
> > may
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > >>> very
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > uncommon
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that stand-by tasks are not keeping up due to
> > the
> > > > > fact
> > > > > >> > that
> > > > > >> > >>> > other
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > active
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > tasks hosted on the same thread is starving
> the
> > > > > standby
> > > > > >> > >>> tasks.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 4. There's a potential race condition risk
> when
> > > > > >> reporting
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLags`
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > subscription: right after reporting it to the
> > > > leader,
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > cleanup
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > kicks in and deletes the state directory. If
> > the
> > > > task
> > > > > >> was
> > > > > >> > >>> > assigned
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > to the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > host it would cause it to restore from
> > beginning
> > > > and
> > > > > >> > >>> effectively
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > make the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > seemingly optimized assignment very
> > sub-optimal.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > To be on the safer side we should consider
> > either
> > > > > prune
> > > > > >> > out
> > > > > >> > >>> > those
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that are "close to be cleaned up" in the
> > > > > subscription,
> > > > > >> or
> > > > > >> > we
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> should
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > delay
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the cleanup right after we've included them
> in
> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> subscription
> > > > > >> > >>> > in
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > case
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > they are been selected as assigned tasks by
> the
> > > > > >> assignor.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 5. This is a meta comment: I think it would
> be
> > > > > helpful
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > >>> add
> > > > > >> > >>> > some
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > user
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > visibility on the standby tasks lagging as
> > well,
> > > > via
> > > > > >> > >>> metrics for
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > example.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Today it is hard for us to observe how far
> are
> > our
> > > > > >> current
> > > > > >> > >>> > standby
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > compared to the active tasks and whether that
> > lag
> > > > is
> > > > > >> being
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > increasing or
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > decreasing. As a follow-up task, for example,
> > the
> > > > > >> > rebalance
> > > > > >> > >>> > should
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > also
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > triggered if we realize that some standby
> > task's
> > > > lag
> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > >>> > increasing
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > indefinitely means that it cannot keep up
> > (which is
> > > > > >> > another
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> indicator
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > either you need to add more resources with
> the
> > > > > >> > num.standbys
> > > > > >> > >>> or
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> your
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > are
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > still not balanced enough).
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:32 PM Sophie
> > Blee-Goldman
> > > > <
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Hey all,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > I'd like to kick off discussion on KIP-441,
> > aimed
> > > > > at
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> long
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > restore
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > times
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > in Streams during which further active
> > processing
> > > > > >> and IQ
> > > > > >> > >>> are
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > blocked.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Please give it a read and let us know your
> > > > thoughts
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Sophie
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > --
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > --
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> --
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>> --
> > > > > >> > >>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -- Guozhang
> > > >
> >
> >
>


-- 
-- Guozhang

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams

Posted by Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io>.

Hi John,

Thank you for your answer. Your assumptions sound reasonable to me.

Best,
Bruno

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 5:30 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> Hey Bruno,
>
> Thanks for taking another look. Some quick responses:
>
> 1) It just means the number of offsets in the topic. E.g., the LSO is 100,
> but the first offset is 40 due to retention, so there are 60 offsets in the
> topic. Further, the lag on that topic would be considered to be 60 for any
> task that hadn't previously done any work on it.
>
> 2) This is undecidable in general. I.e., there's no way we can know whether
> the store is remote or not, and hence whether we can freely assign it to
> another instance, or whether we have to keep it on the same instance.
> However, there are a couple of reasons to go ahead and assume we have the
> freedom to move such tasks.
> * We know that nothing can prevent the loss of an instance in a cluster
> (I.e., this is true of all cloud environments, as well as any managed
> virtualized cluster like mesos or kubernetes), so any Streams program that
> makes use of non-remote, non-logged state is doomed to lose its state when
> it loses an instance.
> * If we take on a restriction that we cannot move such state between
> instances, we'd become overconstrained very quickly. Effectively, if you
> made use of non-logged stores, and we didn't assume freedom of movement,
> then we couldn't make use of any new instances in your cluster.
> * On the other hand, if we optimistically assume we can't move state, but
> only reassign it when we lose an instance, then we're supporting
> non-deterministic logic, because the program would produce different
> results, depending on whether you lost a node during the execution or not.
> 2b) That last point goes along with your side note. I'm not sure if we
> should bother dropping such state on every reassignment, though. It seems
> to be undefined territory enough that we can just do the simplest thing and
> assume people have made their own (external) provisions for durability.
> I.e., when we say "non-logged", we mean that it doesn't make use of _our_
> durability mechanism. I'm arguing that the only sane assumption is that
> such folks have opted to use their own durability measures, and we should
> just assume it works with no special considerations in the assignment
> algorithm.
>
> 3) Good catch! I've fixed it.
>
> Thanks again!
> -John
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:09 AM Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > 1) What do you mean with "full set of offsets in the topic"? Is this
> > the sum of all offsets of the changelog partitions of the task?
> >
> > 2) I am not sure whether non-logged stateful tasks should be
> > effectively treated as stateless tasks during assignment. First we
> > need to decide whether a non-logged stateful task should preferably be
> > assigned to the same instance on which it just run in order to
> > continue to use its state or not.
> >
> > 3) In the example, you define stand-by tasks {S1, S2, ...} but never
> > use them, because below you use a dedicated row for stand-by tasks.
> >
> > As a side note to 2) since it is not directly related to this KIP: We
> > should decide if we want to avoid the possible non-determinism
> > introduced by non-logged stores or not. That is, if an instance hosts
> > a task with non-logged stores then we can have two cases after the
> > next rebalance: a) the task stays on the same instance and continues
> > to use the same state store as used so far or b) the task is assigned
> > to another instance and it starts an empty state store. The produced
> > results for these two cases might differ. To avoid the nondeterminism,
> > non-logged state stores would need to be wiped out before assignment.
> > Then the question arises, how the removal of non-logged state stores
> > before assignment would affect backward-compatibility.
> >
> > Best,
> > Bruno
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:40 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Guozhang,
> > >
> > > > My impression from your previous email is that inside the algorithm
> > when
> > > we
> > > are "filling" them to instances some deterministic logic would be used to
> > > avoid the above case, is that correct?
> > >
> > > Yes, that was my plan, but I didn't formalize it. There was a requirement
> > > that the assignment algorithm must not produce a new assignment if the
> > > current assignment is already balanced, so at the least, any thrashing
> > > would be restricted to the "balancing" phase while tasks are moving
> > around
> > > the cluster.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I think it would be good to say that we'll "try to" produce
> > stable
> > > assignments, so I've added a "should" clause to the assignment spec:
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-AssignmentAlgorithm
> > >
> > > For example, we would sort the stateless tasks and available instances
> > > before assigning them, so that the stateless task assignment would mostly
> > > stay stable between assignments, modulo the compute capacity of the
> > > instances changing a little as active stateful tasks get assigned in more
> > > balanced ways.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -John
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:55 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello John,
> > > >
> > > > That sounds reasonable. Just double checked the code that with logging
> > > > disabled the corresponding checkpoint file would not contain any
> > values,
> > > > just like a stateless task. So I think treating them logically the
> > same is
> > > > fine.
> > > >
> > > > Guozhang
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi again, Guozhang,
> > > > >
> > > > > While writing up the section on stateless tasks (
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statelesstasks
> > > > > ),
> > > > > I reconsidered whether stateful, but non-logged, tasks should
> > actually
> > > > > report a lag of zero, versus not reporting any lag. By the
> > definition of
> > > > > the "StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates" function, the leader would
> > compute
> > > > a
> > > > > lag of zero for these tasks anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, I think the same reasoning that I supplied you for
> > stateless
> > > > > tasks applies, since the member and leader will agree on a lag of
> > zero
> > > > > anyway, we can avoid adding them to the "Task Lags" map, and save
> > some
> > > > > bytes in the JoinGroup request. This would be especially beneficial
> > in an
> > > > > application that uses remote stores for _all_ its state stores, it
> > would
> > > > > have an extremely lightweight JoinGroup request, with no task lags at
> > > > all.
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > -John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:17 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Guozhang.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Side note: I noticed on another pass over the discussion that I'd
> > > > missed
> > > > > > addressing your comment about the potential race condition between
> > > > state
> > > > > > cleanup and lag-based assignment. I've added a solution to the
> > > > proposal:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Racebetweenassignmentandstatecleanup
> > > > > > )
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the JoinGroup (SubscriptionInfo) metadata, stateless tasks are
> > not
> > > > > > represented at all. This should save us some bytes in the request
> > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > If we treated them like non-logged stateful tasks and reported a
> > lag of
> > > > > 0,
> > > > > > the only difference is that the assignor would be able to tell
> > which
> > > > > > members previously hosted that stateless task.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to make a simplifying assumption that stateless tasks can
> > just
> > > > > be
> > > > > > freely reassigned with no regard to stickiness at all, without
> > > > impacting
> > > > > > performance. This is almost true. In fact, while assigned a
> > stateless
> > > > > task,
> > > > > > a member fetches batches of records from the broker, so if we move
> > the
> > > > > > stateless task assignment, this buffered input is wasted and just
> > gets
> > > > > > dropped.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, we won't be moving the stateless tasks around all the time
> > > > (just
> > > > > > during rebalances), and we have the requirement that the assigment
> > > > > > algorithm must stabilize to guard against perpetually shuffling a
> > > > > stateless
> > > > > > task from one node to another. So, my hope is that this small
> > amount of
> > > > > > inefficiency would not be a performance-dominating factor. In
> > exchange,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > gain the opportunity for the assignment algorithm to use the
> > stateless
> > > > > > tasks as "filler" during unbalanced assignments. For example, if
> > there
> > > > > is a
> > > > > > node that is just warming up with several standby tasks, maybe the
> > > > > > assignment can give more stateless tasks to that node to balance
> > the
> > > > > > computational load across the cluster.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's worth noting that such an assignment would still not be
> > considered
> > > > > > "balanced", so the ultimately balanced final state of the
> > assignment
> > > > > (after
> > > > > > task movements) would still have the desired property that each
> > > > stateful
> > > > > > and stateless task is evenly spread across the cluster.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does that seem reasonable?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > -John
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:22 AM Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hello John,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I've made another pass on the wiki page again, overall LGTM. One
> > meta
> > > > > >> comment about the "stateless" tasks: how do we represent them in
> > the
> > > > > >> metadata? Are they just treated as stateful tasks with logging
> > > > disabled,
> > > > > >> or
> > > > > >> are specially handled? It is not very clear in the description.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Guozhang
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:43 AM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > I have also specifically called out that the assignment must
> > achieve
> > > > > >> both
> > > > > >> > "instance" and "task" balance:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Defining%22balance%22
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I've also addressed the problem of state stores with logging
> > > > disabled:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statewithloggingdisabled
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I believe this addresses all the concerns that have been raised
> > to
> > > > > date.
> > > > > >> > Apologies if I've overlooked one of your concerns.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Please give the KIP another read and let me know of any further
> > > > > >> thoughts!
> > > > > >> > Hopefully, we can start the voting on this KIP by the end of the
> > > > week.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > -John
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:16 PM John Roesler <john@confluent.io
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > In response to Bruno's concern #2, I've also added that
> > section to
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > "Rejected Alternatives" section.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Additionally, after reviewing some other assignment papers,
> > I've
> > > > > >> > developed
> > > > > >> > > the concern that specifying which "phases" the assignment
> > > > algorithm
> > > > > >> > should
> > > > > >> > > have, or indeed the logic of it at all, might be a mistake
> > that
> > > > > >> > > over-constrains our ability to write an optimal algorithm.
> > > > > Therefore,
> > > > > >> > I've
> > > > > >> > > also refactored the KIP to just describe the protocol, and
> > specify
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > requirements for the assignment algorithm, but not its exact
> > > > > behavior
> > > > > >> at
> > > > > >> > > all.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > -John
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:13 PM John Roesler <
> > john@confluent.io>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >> Hi All,
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> Thanks for the discussion. I've been considering the idea of
> > > > giving
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >> "catching up" tasks a different name/role. I was in favor
> > > > > initially,
> > > > > >> but
> > > > > >> > >> after working though some details, I think it causes some
> > > > problems,
> > > > > >> > which
> > > > > >> > >> I've written up in the "rejected alternatives" part of the
> > KIP:
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Addinganewkindoftask(%22moving%22,%22recovering%22,%22learner%22)fortaskmovements
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> Please give it a read and let me know what you think.
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> > >> -John
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:57 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>> I think I agree with you Sophie. My gut feeling is that 1)
> > it
> > > > > should
> > > > > >> > not
> > > > > >> > >>> be
> > > > > >> > >>> the major concern in assignor's algorithm for standby tasks
> > not
> > > > > >> > catching
> > > > > >> > >>> up, but rather be tackled in different modules, and 2) a
> > lot of
> > > > > >> > >>> optimization can be down at the stream thread itself, like
> > > > > dedicated
> > > > > >> > >>> threading and larger batching, or even complicated
> > scheduling
> > > > > >> > mechanisms
> > > > > >> > >>> between running, restoring and standby tasks. In anyways, I
> > > > think
> > > > > we
> > > > > >> > can
> > > > > >> > >>> take this out of the scope of KIP-441 for now.
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>> Guozhang
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:48 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > > > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>> > > we may have other ways to not starving the standby
> > tasks,
> > > > for
> > > > > >> > >>> example, by
> > > > > >> > >>> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or even
> > consider
> > > > > having
> > > > > >> > >>> > *higher> priority for standby than active* so that we
> > always
> > > > try
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > >>> caught
> > > > > >> > >>> > up standby
> > > > > >> > >>> > > first, then process active
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > This is an interesting idea, but seems likely to get in
> > the
> > > > way
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > original idea of this KIP
> > > > > >> > >>> > -- if we always process standby tasks first, then if we
> > are
> > > > > >> assigned
> > > > > >> > a
> > > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > > >> > >>> > standby task we
> > > > > >> > >>> > will have to wait for it to catch up completely before
> > > > > processing
> > > > > >> any
> > > > > >> > >>> > active tasks! That's
> > > > > >> > >>> > even worse than the situation this KIP is trying to help
> > with,
> > > > > >> since
> > > > > >> > a
> > > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > > >> > >>> > standby task has to
> > > > > >> > >>> > restore from 0 (whereas an active task at least can take
> > over
> > > > > from
> > > > > >> > >>> wherever
> > > > > >> > >>> > the standby was).
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > During restoration -- while there exist any restoring
> > tasks
> > > > -- I
> > > > > >> > think
> > > > > >> > >>> it's
> > > > > >> > >>> > reasonable to de-prioritize the
> > > > > >> > >>> > standby tasks and just process restoring and active tasks
> > so
> > > > > both
> > > > > >> can
> > > > > >> > >>> make
> > > > > >> > >>> > progress. But we should
> > > > > >> > >>> > let them catch up afterwards somehow -- maybe we can apply
> > > > some
> > > > > >> kind
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > >>> > heuristic, like "if we haven't
> > > > > >> > >>> > processed standbys for X iterations, or Y milliseconds,
> > do so
> > > > > >> now."
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > Actually, it might even be beneficial to avoid processing
> > > > > >> standbys a
> > > > > >> > >>> record
> > > > > >> > >>> > or two at a time and instead
> > > > > >> > >>> > wait for a large enough batch to build up for the RocksDB
> > > > > >> > bulk-loading
> > > > > >> > >>> > benefits.
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > I think the "use dedicated threads for standby" is the
> > more
> > > > > >> promising
> > > > > >> > >>> end
> > > > > >> > >>> > goal, especially since
> > > > > >> > >>> > if we split restoration into "restoring tasks" then
> > active and
> > > > > >> > standbys
> > > > > >> > >>> > share almost nothing. But
> > > > > >> > >>> > that seems like follow-up work to the current KIP :)
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:31 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > > > >> > >>> sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > > Stateful tasks with logging disabled seem to be an
> > > > interesting
> > > > > >> edge
> > > > > >> > >>> case.
> > > > > >> > >>> > > On the one hand,
> > > > > >> > >>> > > for balancing purposes they should be considered
> > stateful
> > > > > since
> > > > > >> as
> > > > > >> > >>> > > Guozhang pointed out
> > > > > >> > >>> > > they are still "heavy" in IO costs. But for "catching
> > up"
> > > > > >> purposes,
> > > > > >> > >>> ie
> > > > > >> > >>> > > when allocating standby
> > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks that will become active tasks, they should be
> > > > considered
> > > > > >> > >>> stateless
> > > > > >> > >>> > > as there is so
> > > > > >> > >>> > > meaningful sense of their lag. We should never allocate
> > > > > standby
> > > > > >> > >>> tasks for
> > > > > >> > >>> > > them during the
> > > > > >> > >>> > > first rebalance, but should ensure they are evenly
> > > > distributed
> > > > > >> > across
> > > > > >> > >>> > > instances. Maybe we
> > > > > >> > >>> > > should split these into a third category -- after we
> > assign
> > > > > all
> > > > > >> > >>> stateful
> > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks with logging, we
> > > > > >> > >>> > > then distribute the set of logging-disabled stateful
> > tasks
> > > > to
> > > > > >> > improve
> > > > > >> > >>> > > balance, before lastly
> > > > > >> > >>> > > distributing stateless tasks?
> > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > > This actually leads into what I was just thinking,
> > which is
> > > > > >> that we
> > > > > >> > >>> > really
> > > > > >> > >>> > > should distinguish the
> > > > > >> > >>> > > "catch-up" standbys from normal standbys as well as
> > > > > >> distinguishing
> > > > > >> > >>> > > actively processing tasks
> > > > > >> > >>> > > from active tasks that are still in the restore phase.
> > It's
> > > > > >> > somewhat
> > > > > >> > >>> > > awkward that today, some
> > > > > >> > >>> > > active tasks just start processing immediately while
> > others
> > > > > >> behave
> > > > > >> > >>> more
> > > > > >> > >>> > > like standby than active
> > > > > >> > >>> > > tasks for some time, before switching to real active.
> > They
> > > > > first
> > > > > >> > use
> > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > > restoreConsumer, then
> > > > > >> > >>> > > later only the "normal" consumer.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > > However, this restore period is still distinct from
> > normal
> > > > > >> standbys
> > > > > >> > >>> in a
> > > > > >> > >>> > > lot of ways -- the code path
> > > > > >> > >>> > > for restoring is different than for updating standbys,
> > for
> > > > > >> example
> > > > > >> > >>> in how
> > > > > >> > >>> > > long we block on #poll.
> > > > > >> > >>> > > So in addition to giving them their own name -- let's go
> > > > with
> > > > > >> > >>> restoring
> > > > > >> > >>> > > task for now -- they really
> > > > > >> > >>> > > do seem to deserve being their own distinct task. We can
> > > > > >> optimize
> > > > > >> > >>> them
> > > > > >> > >>> > for
> > > > > >> > >>> > > efficient conversion
> > > > > >> > >>> > > to active tasks since we know that's what they will be.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > > This resolves some of the awkwardness of dealing with
> > the
> > > > > >> special
> > > > > >> > >>> case
> > > > > >> > >>> > > mentioned above: we
> > > > > >> > >>> > > find a balanced assignment of stateful and stateless
> > tasks,
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > >>> create
> > > > > >> > >>> > > restoring tasks as needed.
> > > > > >> > >>> > > If logging is disabled, no restoring task is created.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:44 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > >> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> Regarding 3) above: I think for active task they should
> > > > still
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> considered
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful since the processor would still pay IO cost
> > > > > accessing
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > store,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> but they would not have standby tasks?
> > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:49 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > > >> bruno@confluent.io>
> > > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Hi,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Thank you for the KIP!
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Some questions/comments:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 1. I am wondering if the "stand-by" tasks that catch
> > up
> > > > > state
> > > > > >> > >>> before
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the active task is switched deserve its own name in
> > this
> > > > > KIP
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > >>> maybe
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in the code. We have already stated that they are not
> > > > true
> > > > > >> > >>> stand-by
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks, they are not configured through
> > > > > >> `num.standby.replicas`,
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > maybe they have also other properties that
> > distinguish
> > > > them
> > > > > >> from
> > > > > >> > >>> true
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > stand-by tasks of which we are not aware yet. For
> > > > example,
> > > > > >> they
> > > > > >> > >>> may be
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > prioritized differently than other tasks.
> > Furthermore,
> > > > the
> > > > > >> name
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > "stand-by" does not really fit with the planned
> > > > > >> functionality of
> > > > > >> > >>> those
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks. In the following, I will call them false
> > stand-by
> > > > > >> tasks.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 2. Did you consider to trigger the probing
> > rebalances not
> > > > > at
> > > > > >> > >>> regular
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > time intervals but when the false stand-by tasks
> > reach an
> > > > > >> > >>> acceptable
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > lag? If you did consider, could you add a paragraph
> > why
> > > > you
> > > > > >> > >>> rejected
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > this idea to the "Rejected Alternatives" section.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 3. Are tasks that solely contain stores with disabled
> > > > > logging
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > classified as stateful or stateless in the
> > algorithm? I
> > > > > would
> > > > > >> > >>> guess
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > stateless, although if possible they should be
> > assigned
> > > > to
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> same
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > instance they had run before the rebalance. As far
> > as I
> > > > can
> > > > > >> see
> > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > special case is not handled in the algorithm.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Best,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Bruno
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:24 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > >> > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 1. Sounds good, just wanted to clarify; and it may
> > > > worth
> > > > > >> > >>> documenting
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> it
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > so
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > that users would not be surprised when monitoring
> > their
> > > > > >> > >>> footprint.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 2. Hmm I see... I think the trade-off can be
> > described
> > > > as
> > > > > >> "how
> > > > > >> > >>> much
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance would bother you to be willing to pay
> > another
> > > > > >> > >>> rebalance,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> along
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > with potentially more restoration lag", and the
> > current
> > > > > >> > >>> definition
> > > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > rebalance_factor can be considered as a rough
> > > > measurement
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> > >>> that
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance. Of course one can argue that a finer
> > grained
> > > > > >> > >>> measurement
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> could
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > be "resource footprint" like CPU / storage of each
> > > > > instance
> > > > > >> > >>> like we
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> have
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > Kafka broker auto balancing tools, but I'd prefer
> > not
> > > > > doing
> > > > > >> > >>> that as
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> part
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > of
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the library but more as an operational tool in the
> > > > > future.
> > > > > >> On
> > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> other
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > hand, I've seen stateful and stateless tasks having
> > > > very
> > > > > >> > >>> different
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> load,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > and sometimes the only bottleneck of a Streams app
> > is
> > > > > just
> > > > > >> one
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > sub-topology and whoever gets tasks of that
> > > > sub-topology
> > > > > >> > become
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> hotspot
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > (and that's why our algorithm tries to balance per
> > > > > >> > sub-topology
> > > > > >> > >>> as
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> well),
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > so maybe we can just consider stateful tasks when
> > > > > >> calculating
> > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> factor
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > as a very brute force heuristic?
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 3.a. Thinking about this a bit more, maybe it's
> > better
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> try
> > > > > >> > >>> to
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> tackle
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > an
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > unseen enemy just yet, and observe if it really
> > emerges
> > > > > >> later,
> > > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > > >> > >>> > by
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > then
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > we may have other ways to not starving the standby
> > > > tasks,
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> example, by
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or even
> > > > consider
> > > > > >> > having
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> higher
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > priority for standby than active so that we always
> > try
> > > > to
> > > > > >> > >>> caught up
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > standby
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > first, then process active; and if active's lagging
> > > > > >> compared
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > log-end-offset is increasing then we should
> > increase
> > > > > >> capacity,
> > > > > >> > >>> etc
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> etc.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 4. Actually with KIP-429 this may not be the case:
> > we
> > > > may
> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >> > >>> call
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > onPartitionsRevoked prior to rebalance any more so
> > > > would
> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >> > >>> transit
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > state
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > to PARTITIONS_REVOKED, and hence not cause the
> > state of
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > >>> instance
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> to
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > be
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > REBALANCING. In other words, even if a instance is
> > > > > >> undergoing
> > > > > >> > a
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> rebalance
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > it's state may still be RUNNING and it may still be
> > > > > >> processing
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> records at
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the same time.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:14 PM John Roesler <
> > > > > >> > john@confluent.io
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks for the review!
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 1. Yes, even with `num.standby.replicas := 0`, we
> > > > will
> > > > > >> still
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > temporarily
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allocate standby tasks to accomplish a
> > no-downtime
> > > > task
> > > > > >> > >>> migration.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Although, I'd argue that this doesn't really
> > violate
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > >>> config,
> > > > > >> > >>> > as
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > task isn't a true hot standby. As soon as it
> > catches
> > > > > up,
> > > > > >> > we'll
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > rebalance
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > again, that task will become active, and the
> > original
> > > > > >> > instance
> > > > > >> > >>> > that
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > hosted
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the active task will no longer have the task
> > assigned
> > > > > at
> > > > > >> > all.
> > > > > >> > >>> Once
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > stateDirCleaner kicks in, we'll free the disk
> > space
> > > > > from
> > > > > >> it,
> > > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > return to
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the steady-state of having just one copy of the
> > task
> > > > in
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > cluster.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > We can of course do without this, but I feel the
> > > > > current
> > > > > >> > >>> proposal
> > > > > >> > >>> > is
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > operationally preferable, since it doesn't make
> > > > > >> configuring
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > hot-standbys a
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > pre-requisite for fast rebalances.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 2. Yes, I think your interpretation is what we
> > > > > intended.
> > > > > >> The
> > > > > >> > >>> > default
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor would be 1, as it is implicitly
> > today.
> > > > > >> What
> > > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> does is
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allows operators to trade off less balanced
> > > > assignments
> > > > > >> > >>> against
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> fewer
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > rebalances. If you have lots of space capacity in
> > > > your
> > > > > >> > >>> instances,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> this
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > may
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be a perfectly fine tradeoff, and you may prefer
> > for
> > > > > >> Streams
> > > > > >> > >>> not
> > > > > >> > >>> > to
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > bother
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > streaming GBs of data from the broker in pursuit
> > of
> > > > > >> perfect
> > > > > >> > >>> > balance.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > Not
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > married to this configuration, though. It was
> > > > inspired
> > > > > by
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> related
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > work
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > research we did.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3. I'll take a look
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3a. I think this is a good idea. I'd classify it
> > as a
> > > > > >> type
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > >>> grey
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > failure
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > detection. It may make more sense to tackle grey
> > > > > >> failures as
> > > > > >> > >>> part
> > > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > heartbeat protocol (as I POCed here:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/7096/files
> > ).
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 4. Good catch! I didn't think about that before.
> > > > > Looking
> > > > > >> at
> > > > > >> > it
> > > > > >> > >>> > now,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > though,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > I wonder if we're actually protected already. The
> > > > > >> > >>> stateDirCleaner
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > only executes if the instance is in RUNNING
> > state,
> > > > and
> > > > > >> > KIP-441
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > proposes to
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > use "probing rebalances" to report task lag.
> > Hence,
> > > > > >> during
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> window
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > between when the instance reports a lag and the
> > > > > assignor
> > > > > >> > >>> makes a
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > decision
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > about it, the instance should remain in
> > REBALANCING
> > > > > >> state,
> > > > > >> > >>> right?
> > > > > >> > >>> > If
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > so,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > then this should prevent the race condition. If
> > not,
> > > > > >> then we
> > > > > >> > >>> do
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> indeed
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > need
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > to do something about it.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 5. Good idea. I think that today, you can only
> > see
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > >>> consumer
> > > > > >> > >>> > lag,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > which
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > is a poor substitute. I'll add some metrics to
> > the
> > > > > >> proposal.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks again for the comments!
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > -John
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:27 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > >> > >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Hello Sophie,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I left some
> > comments
> > > > on
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> wiki
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > and I
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > think I'm still not very clear on a couple or
> > > > those:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 1. With this proposal, does that mean with
> > > > > >> > >>> num.standby.replicas
> > > > > >> > >>> > ==
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > 0, we
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > may sometimes still have some standby tasks
> > which
> > > > may
> > > > > >> > >>> violate
> > > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > config?
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 2. I think I understand the rationale to
> > consider
> > > > > lags
> > > > > >> > that
> > > > > >> > >>> is
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> below
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > specified threshold to be equal, rather than
> > still
> > > > > >> > >>> considering
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> 5000
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > is
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > better than 5001 -- we do not want to
> > > > "over-optimize"
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> potentially
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > falls
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > into endless rebalances back and forth.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > But I'm not clear about the rationale of the
> > second
> > > > > >> > >>> parameter of
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > constrainedBalancedAssignment(StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > balance_factor):
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Does that mean, e.g. with balance_factor of 3,
> > we'd
> > > > > >> > >>> consider two
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > assignments one resulting balance_factor 0 and
> > one
> > > > > >> > resulting
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3 to be equally optimized assignment and
> > therefore
> > > > > may
> > > > > >> > "stop
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> early"?
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > This
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > was not very convincing to me :P
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3. There are a couple of minor comments about
> > the
> > > > > >> > algorithm
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > left
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > on
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the wiki page since it needs to refer to the
> > exact
> > > > > line
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > >>> > better
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > displayed there.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3.a Another wild thought about the threshold
> > > > itself:
> > > > > >> today
> > > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > assignment
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > itself is memoryless, so we would not know if
> > the
> > > > > >> reported
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLag`
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > itself
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > is increasing or decreasing even if the current
> > > > value
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> > >>> under
> > > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > threshold. I wonder if it worthy to make it a
> > bit
> > > > > more
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> complicated to
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > track
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > task lag trend at the assignor? Practically it
> > may
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > >>> very
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > uncommon
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that stand-by tasks are not keeping up due to
> > the
> > > > > fact
> > > > > >> > that
> > > > > >> > >>> > other
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > active
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > tasks hosted on the same thread is starving the
> > > > > standby
> > > > > >> > >>> tasks.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 4. There's a potential race condition risk when
> > > > > >> reporting
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLags`
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > subscription: right after reporting it to the
> > > > leader,
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> > cleanup
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > kicks in and deletes the state directory. If
> > the
> > > > task
> > > > > >> was
> > > > > >> > >>> > assigned
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > to the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > host it would cause it to restore from
> > beginning
> > > > and
> > > > > >> > >>> effectively
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > make the
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > seemingly optimized assignment very
> > sub-optimal.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > To be on the safer side we should consider
> > either
> > > > > prune
> > > > > >> > out
> > > > > >> > >>> > those
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that are "close to be cleaned up" in the
> > > > > subscription,
> > > > > >> or
> > > > > >> > we
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> should
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > delay
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the cleanup right after we've included them in
> > the
> > > > > >> > >>> subscription
> > > > > >> > >>> > in
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > case
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > they are been selected as assigned tasks by the
> > > > > >> assignor.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 5. This is a meta comment: I think it would be
> > > > > helpful
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > >>> add
> > > > > >> > >>> > some
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > user
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > visibility on the standby tasks lagging as
> > well,
> > > > via
> > > > > >> > >>> metrics for
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > example.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Today it is hard for us to observe how far are
> > our
> > > > > >> current
> > > > > >> > >>> > standby
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > compared to the active tasks and whether that
> > lag
> > > > is
> > > > > >> being
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > increasing or
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > decreasing. As a follow-up task, for example,
> > the
> > > > > >> > rebalance
> > > > > >> > >>> > should
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > also
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > triggered if we realize that some standby
> > task's
> > > > lag
> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > >>> > increasing
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > indefinitely means that it cannot keep up
> > (which is
> > > > > >> > another
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> indicator
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > either you need to add more resources with the
> > > > > >> > num.standbys
> > > > > >> > >>> or
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> your
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > are
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > still not balanced enough).
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:32 PM Sophie
> > Blee-Goldman
> > > > <
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Hey all,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > I'd like to kick off discussion on KIP-441,
> > aimed
> > > > > at
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > >>> long
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > restore
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > times
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > in Streams during which further active
> > processing
> > > > > >> and IQ
> > > > > >> > >>> are
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > blocked.
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Please give it a read and let us know your
> > > > thoughts
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Sophie
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > --
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > --
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> --
> > > > > >> > >>> > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>> --
> > > > > >> > >>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -- Guozhang
> > > >
> >
> >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams

Posted by John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>.

Hey Bruno,

Thanks for taking another look. Some quick responses:

1) It just means the number of offsets in the topic. E.g., the LSO is 100,
but the first offset is 40 due to retention, so there are 60 offsets in the
topic. Further, the lag on that topic would be considered to be 60 for any
task that hadn't previously done any work on it.

2) This is undecidable in general. I.e., there's no way we can know whether
the store is remote or not, and hence whether we can freely assign it to
another instance, or whether we have to keep it on the same instance.
However, there are a couple of reasons to go ahead and assume we have the
freedom to move such tasks.
* We know that nothing can prevent the loss of an instance in a cluster
(I.e., this is true of all cloud environments, as well as any managed
virtualized cluster like mesos or kubernetes), so any Streams program that
makes use of non-remote, non-logged state is doomed to lose its state when
it loses an instance.
* If we take on a restriction that we cannot move such state between
instances, we'd become overconstrained very quickly. Effectively, if you
made use of non-logged stores, and we didn't assume freedom of movement,
then we couldn't make use of any new instances in your cluster.
* On the other hand, if we optimistically assume we can't move state, but
only reassign it when we lose an instance, then we're supporting
non-deterministic logic, because the program would produce different
results, depending on whether you lost a node during the execution or not.
2b) That last point goes along with your side note. I'm not sure if we
should bother dropping such state on every reassignment, though. It seems
to be undefined territory enough that we can just do the simplest thing and
assume people have made their own (external) provisions for durability.
I.e., when we say "non-logged", we mean that it doesn't make use of _our_
durability mechanism. I'm arguing that the only sane assumption is that
such folks have opted to use their own durability measures, and we should
just assume it works with no special considerations in the assignment
algorithm.

3) Good catch! I've fixed it.

Thanks again!
-John

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:09 AM Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 1) What do you mean with "full set of offsets in the topic"? Is this
> the sum of all offsets of the changelog partitions of the task?
>
> 2) I am not sure whether non-logged stateful tasks should be
> effectively treated as stateless tasks during assignment. First we
> need to decide whether a non-logged stateful task should preferably be
> assigned to the same instance on which it just run in order to
> continue to use its state or not.
>
> 3) In the example, you define stand-by tasks {S1, S2, ...} but never
> use them, because below you use a dedicated row for stand-by tasks.
>
> As a side note to 2) since it is not directly related to this KIP: We
> should decide if we want to avoid the possible non-determinism
> introduced by non-logged stores or not. That is, if an instance hosts
> a task with non-logged stores then we can have two cases after the
> next rebalance: a) the task stays on the same instance and continues
> to use the same state store as used so far or b) the task is assigned
> to another instance and it starts an empty state store. The produced
> results for these two cases might differ. To avoid the nondeterminism,
> non-logged state stores would need to be wiped out before assignment.
> Then the question arises, how the removal of non-logged state stores
> before assignment would affect backward-compatibility.
>
> Best,
> Bruno
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:40 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Guozhang,
> >
> > > My impression from your previous email is that inside the algorithm
> when
> > we
> > are "filling" them to instances some deterministic logic would be used to
> > avoid the above case, is that correct?
> >
> > Yes, that was my plan, but I didn't formalize it. There was a requirement
> > that the assignment algorithm must not produce a new assignment if the
> > current assignment is already balanced, so at the least, any thrashing
> > would be restricted to the "balancing" phase while tasks are moving
> around
> > the cluster.
> >
> > Anyway, I think it would be good to say that we'll "try to" produce
> stable
> > assignments, so I've added a "should" clause to the assignment spec:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-AssignmentAlgorithm
> >
> > For example, we would sort the stateless tasks and available instances
> > before assigning them, so that the stateless task assignment would mostly
> > stay stable between assignments, modulo the compute capacity of the
> > instances changing a little as active stateful tasks get assigned in more
> > balanced ways.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -John
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:55 PM Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello John,
> > >
> > > That sounds reasonable. Just double checked the code that with logging
> > > disabled the corresponding checkpoint file would not contain any
> values,
> > > just like a stateless task. So I think treating them logically the
> same is
> > > fine.
> > >
> > > Guozhang
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi again, Guozhang,
> > > >
> > > > While writing up the section on stateless tasks (
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statelesstasks
> > > > ),
> > > > I reconsidered whether stateful, but non-logged, tasks should
> actually
> > > > report a lag of zero, versus not reporting any lag. By the
> definition of
> > > > the "StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates" function, the leader would
> compute
> > > a
> > > > lag of zero for these tasks anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, I think the same reasoning that I supplied you for
> stateless
> > > > tasks applies, since the member and leader will agree on a lag of
> zero
> > > > anyway, we can avoid adding them to the "Task Lags" map, and save
> some
> > > > bytes in the JoinGroup request. This would be especially beneficial
> in an
> > > > application that uses remote stores for _all_ its state stores, it
> would
> > > > have an extremely lightweight JoinGroup request, with no task lags at
> > > all.
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > > -John
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:17 PM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Guozhang.
> > > > >
> > > > > (Side note: I noticed on another pass over the discussion that I'd
> > > missed
> > > > > addressing your comment about the potential race condition between
> > > state
> > > > > cleanup and lag-based assignment. I've added a solution to the
> > > proposal:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Racebetweenassignmentandstatecleanup
> > > > > )
> > > > >
> > > > > In the JoinGroup (SubscriptionInfo) metadata, stateless tasks are
> not
> > > > > represented at all. This should save us some bytes in the request
> > > > metadata.
> > > > > If we treated them like non-logged stateful tasks and reported a
> lag of
> > > > 0,
> > > > > the only difference is that the assignor would be able to tell
> which
> > > > > members previously hosted that stateless task.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to make a simplifying assumption that stateless tasks can
> just
> > > > be
> > > > > freely reassigned with no regard to stickiness at all, without
> > > impacting
> > > > > performance. This is almost true. In fact, while assigned a
> stateless
> > > > task,
> > > > > a member fetches batches of records from the broker, so if we move
> the
> > > > > stateless task assignment, this buffered input is wasted and just
> gets
> > > > > dropped.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, we won't be moving the stateless tasks around all the time
> > > (just
> > > > > during rebalances), and we have the requirement that the assigment
> > > > > algorithm must stabilize to guard against perpetually shuffling a
> > > > stateless
> > > > > task from one node to another. So, my hope is that this small
> amount of
> > > > > inefficiency would not be a performance-dominating factor. In
> exchange,
> > > > we
> > > > > gain the opportunity for the assignment algorithm to use the
> stateless
> > > > > tasks as "filler" during unbalanced assignments. For example, if
> there
> > > > is a
> > > > > node that is just warming up with several standby tasks, maybe the
> > > > > assignment can give more stateless tasks to that node to balance
> the
> > > > > computational load across the cluster.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's worth noting that such an assignment would still not be
> considered
> > > > > "balanced", so the ultimately balanced final state of the
> assignment
> > > > (after
> > > > > task movements) would still have the desired property that each
> > > stateful
> > > > > and stateless task is evenly spread across the cluster.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does that seem reasonable?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > -John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:22 AM Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hello John,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I've made another pass on the wiki page again, overall LGTM. One
> meta
> > > > >> comment about the "stateless" tasks: how do we represent them in
> the
> > > > >> metadata? Are they just treated as stateful tasks with logging
> > > disabled,
> > > > >> or
> > > > >> are specially handled? It is not very clear in the description.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Guozhang
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 8:43 AM John Roesler <jo...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > I have also specifically called out that the assignment must
> achieve
> > > > >> both
> > > > >> > "instance" and "task" balance:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Defining%22balance%22
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I've also addressed the problem of state stores with logging
> > > disabled:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Statewithloggingdisabled
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I believe this addresses all the concerns that have been raised
> to
> > > > date.
> > > > >> > Apologies if I've overlooked one of your concerns.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Please give the KIP another read and let me know of any further
> > > > >> thoughts!
> > > > >> > Hopefully, we can start the voting on this KIP by the end of the
> > > week.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > >> > -John
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:16 PM John Roesler <john@confluent.io
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > In response to Bruno's concern #2, I've also added that
> section to
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > "Rejected Alternatives" section.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Additionally, after reviewing some other assignment papers,
> I've
> > > > >> > developed
> > > > >> > > the concern that specifying which "phases" the assignment
> > > algorithm
> > > > >> > should
> > > > >> > > have, or indeed the logic of it at all, might be a mistake
> that
> > > > >> > > over-constrains our ability to write an optimal algorithm.
> > > > Therefore,
> > > > >> > I've
> > > > >> > > also refactored the KIP to just describe the protocol, and
> specify
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > requirements for the assignment algorithm, but not its exact
> > > > behavior
> > > > >> at
> > > > >> > > all.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > -John
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:13 PM John Roesler <
> john@confluent.io>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> Hi All,
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Thanks for the discussion. I've been considering the idea of
> > > giving
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >> "catching up" tasks a different name/role. I was in favor
> > > > initially,
> > > > >> but
> > > > >> > >> after working though some details, I think it causes some
> > > problems,
> > > > >> > which
> > > > >> > >> I've written up in the "rejected alternatives" part of the
> KIP:
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441%3A+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams#KIP-441:SmoothScalingOutforKafkaStreams-Addinganewkindoftask(%22moving%22,%22recovering%22,%22learner%22)fortaskmovements
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Please give it a read and let me know what you think.
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> -John
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:57 PM Guozhang Wang <
> wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >>> I think I agree with you Sophie. My gut feeling is that 1)
> it
> > > > should
> > > > >> > not
> > > > >> > >>> be
> > > > >> > >>> the major concern in assignor's algorithm for standby tasks
> not
> > > > >> > catching
> > > > >> > >>> up, but rather be tackled in different modules, and 2) a
> lot of
> > > > >> > >>> optimization can be down at the stream thread itself, like
> > > > dedicated
> > > > >> > >>> threading and larger batching, or even complicated
> scheduling
> > > > >> > mechanisms
> > > > >> > >>> between running, restoring and standby tasks. In anyways, I
> > > think
> > > > we
> > > > >> > can
> > > > >> > >>> take this out of the scope of KIP-441 for now.
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>> Guozhang
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:48 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>> > > we may have other ways to not starving the standby
> tasks,
> > > for
> > > > >> > >>> example, by
> > > > >> > >>> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or even
> consider
> > > > having
> > > > >> > >>> > *higher> priority for standby than active* so that we
> always
> > > try
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > >>> caught
> > > > >> > >>> > up standby
> > > > >> > >>> > > first, then process active
> > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > >> > >>> > This is an interesting idea, but seems likely to get in
> the
> > > way
> > > > of
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >>> > original idea of this KIP
> > > > >> > >>> > -- if we always process standby tasks first, then if we
> are
> > > > >> assigned
> > > > >> > a
> > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > >> > >>> > standby task we
> > > > >> > >>> > will have to wait for it to catch up completely before
> > > > processing
> > > > >> any
> > > > >> > >>> > active tasks! That's
> > > > >> > >>> > even worse than the situation this KIP is trying to help
> with,
> > > > >> since
> > > > >> > a
> > > > >> > >>> new
> > > > >> > >>> > standby task has to
> > > > >> > >>> > restore from 0 (whereas an active task at least can take
> over
> > > > from
> > > > >> > >>> wherever
> > > > >> > >>> > the standby was).
> > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > >> > >>> > During restoration -- while there exist any restoring
> tasks
> > > -- I
> > > > >> > think
> > > > >> > >>> it's
> > > > >> > >>> > reasonable to de-prioritize the
> > > > >> > >>> > standby tasks and just process restoring and active tasks
> so
> > > > both
> > > > >> can
> > > > >> > >>> make
> > > > >> > >>> > progress. But we should
> > > > >> > >>> > let them catch up afterwards somehow -- maybe we can apply
> > > some
> > > > >> kind
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > >>> > heuristic, like "if we haven't
> > > > >> > >>> > processed standbys for X iterations, or Y milliseconds,
> do so
> > > > >> now."
> > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > >> > >>> > Actually, it might even be beneficial to avoid processing
> > > > >> standbys a
> > > > >> > >>> record
> > > > >> > >>> > or two at a time and instead
> > > > >> > >>> > wait for a large enough batch to build up for the RocksDB
> > > > >> > bulk-loading
> > > > >> > >>> > benefits.
> > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > >> > >>> > I think the "use dedicated threads for standby" is the
> more
> > > > >> promising
> > > > >> > >>> end
> > > > >> > >>> > goal, especially since
> > > > >> > >>> > if we split restoration into "restoring tasks" then
> active and
> > > > >> > standbys
> > > > >> > >>> > share almost nothing. But
> > > > >> > >>> > that seems like follow-up work to the current KIP :)
> > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > >> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:31 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > > >> > >>> sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > >> > >>> > > Stateful tasks with logging disabled seem to be an
> > > interesting
> > > > >> edge
> > > > >> > >>> case.
> > > > >> > >>> > > On the one hand,
> > > > >> > >>> > > for balancing purposes they should be considered
> stateful
> > > > since
> > > > >> as
> > > > >> > >>> > > Guozhang pointed out
> > > > >> > >>> > > they are still "heavy" in IO costs. But for "catching
> up"
> > > > >> purposes,
> > > > >> > >>> ie
> > > > >> > >>> > > when allocating standby
> > > > >> > >>> > > tasks that will become active tasks, they should be
> > > considered
> > > > >> > >>> stateless
> > > > >> > >>> > > as there is so
> > > > >> > >>> > > meaningful sense of their lag. We should never allocate
> > > > standby
> > > > >> > >>> tasks for
> > > > >> > >>> > > them during the
> > > > >> > >>> > > first rebalance, but should ensure they are evenly
> > > distributed
> > > > >> > across
> > > > >> > >>> > > instances. Maybe we
> > > > >> > >>> > > should split these into a third category -- after we
> assign
> > > > all
> > > > >> > >>> stateful
> > > > >> > >>> > > tasks with logging, we
> > > > >> > >>> > > then distribute the set of logging-disabled stateful
> tasks
> > > to
> > > > >> > improve
> > > > >> > >>> > > balance, before lastly
> > > > >> > >>> > > distributing stateless tasks?
> > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> > >>> > > This actually leads into what I was just thinking,
> which is
> > > > >> that we
> > > > >> > >>> > really
> > > > >> > >>> > > should distinguish the
> > > > >> > >>> > > "catch-up" standbys from normal standbys as well as
> > > > >> distinguishing
> > > > >> > >>> > > actively processing tasks
> > > > >> > >>> > > from active tasks that are still in the restore phase.
> It's
> > > > >> > somewhat
> > > > >> > >>> > > awkward that today, some
> > > > >> > >>> > > active tasks just start processing immediately while
> others
> > > > >> behave
> > > > >> > >>> more
> > > > >> > >>> > > like standby than active
> > > > >> > >>> > > tasks for some time, before switching to real active.
> They
> > > > first
> > > > >> > use
> > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > >> > >>> > > restoreConsumer, then
> > > > >> > >>> > > later only the "normal" consumer.
> > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> > >>> > > However, this restore period is still distinct from
> normal
> > > > >> standbys
> > > > >> > >>> in a
> > > > >> > >>> > > lot of ways -- the code path
> > > > >> > >>> > > for restoring is different than for updating standbys,
> for
> > > > >> example
> > > > >> > >>> in how
> > > > >> > >>> > > long we block on #poll.
> > > > >> > >>> > > So in addition to giving them their own name -- let's go
> > > with
> > > > >> > >>> restoring
> > > > >> > >>> > > task for now -- they really
> > > > >> > >>> > > do seem to deserve being their own distinct task. We can
> > > > >> optimize
> > > > >> > >>> them
> > > > >> > >>> > for
> > > > >> > >>> > > efficient conversion
> > > > >> > >>> > > to active tasks since we know that's what they will be.
> > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> > >>> > > This resolves some of the awkwardness of dealing with
> the
> > > > >> special
> > > > >> > >>> case
> > > > >> > >>> > > mentioned above: we
> > > > >> > >>> > > find a balanced assignment of stateful and stateless
> tasks,
> > > > and
> > > > >> > >>> create
> > > > >> > >>> > > restoring tasks as needed.
> > > > >> > >>> > > If logging is disabled, no restoring task is created.
> > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> > >>> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:44 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > >> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > >>> wrote:
> > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> Regarding 3) above: I think for active task they should
> > > still
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> > >>> > >> considered
> > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful since the processor would still pay IO cost
> > > > accessing
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >>> > store,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> but they would not have standby tasks?
> > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> > >>> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:49 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> > > > >> bruno@confluent.io>
> > > > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > Hi,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > Thank you for the KIP!
> > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > Some questions/comments:
> > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > 1. I am wondering if the "stand-by" tasks that catch
> up
> > > > state
> > > > >> > >>> before
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > the active task is switched deserve its own name in
> this
> > > > KIP
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > >>> maybe
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > in the code. We have already stated that they are not
> > > true
> > > > >> > >>> stand-by
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks, they are not configured through
> > > > >> `num.standby.replicas`,
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > maybe they have also other properties that
> distinguish
> > > them
> > > > >> from
> > > > >> > >>> true
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > stand-by tasks of which we are not aware yet. For
> > > example,
> > > > >> they
> > > > >> > >>> may be
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > prioritized differently than other tasks.
> Furthermore,
> > > the
> > > > >> name
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > "stand-by" does not really fit with the planned
> > > > >> functionality of
> > > > >> > >>> those
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks. In the following, I will call them false
> stand-by
> > > > >> tasks.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > 2. Did you consider to trigger the probing
> rebalances not
> > > > at
> > > > >> > >>> regular
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > time intervals but when the false stand-by tasks
> reach an
> > > > >> > >>> acceptable
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > lag? If you did consider, could you add a paragraph
> why
> > > you
> > > > >> > >>> rejected
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > this idea to the "Rejected Alternatives" section.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > 3. Are tasks that solely contain stores with disabled
> > > > logging
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > classified as stateful or stateless in the
> algorithm? I
> > > > would
> > > > >> > >>> guess
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > stateless, although if possible they should be
> assigned
> > > to
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >>> same
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > instance they had run before the rebalance. As far
> as I
> > > can
> > > > >> see
> > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > special case is not handled in the algorithm.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > Best,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > Bruno
> > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:24 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > >> > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 1. Sounds good, just wanted to clarify; and it may
> > > worth
> > > > >> > >>> documenting
> > > > >> > >>> > >> it
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > so
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > that users would not be surprised when monitoring
> their
> > > > >> > >>> footprint.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 2. Hmm I see... I think the trade-off can be
> described
> > > as
> > > > >> "how
> > > > >> > >>> much
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance would bother you to be willing to pay
> another
> > > > >> > >>> rebalance,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> along
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > with potentially more restoration lag", and the
> current
> > > > >> > >>> definition
> > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > rebalance_factor can be considered as a rough
> > > measurement
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > >>> that
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > imbalance. Of course one can argue that a finer
> grained
> > > > >> > >>> measurement
> > > > >> > >>> > >> could
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > be "resource footprint" like CPU / storage of each
> > > > instance
> > > > >> > >>> like we
> > > > >> > >>> > >> have
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > Kafka broker auto balancing tools, but I'd prefer
> not
> > > > doing
> > > > >> > >>> that as
> > > > >> > >>> > >> part
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > of
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the library but more as an operational tool in the
> > > > future.
> > > > >> On
> > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > >> > >>> > >> other
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > hand, I've seen stateful and stateless tasks having
> > > very
> > > > >> > >>> different
> > > > >> > >>> > >> load,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > and sometimes the only bottleneck of a Streams app
> is
> > > > just
> > > > >> one
> > > > >> > >>> > >> stateful
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > sub-topology and whoever gets tasks of that
> > > sub-topology
> > > > >> > become
> > > > >> > >>> > >> hotspot
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > (and that's why our algorithm tries to balance per
> > > > >> > sub-topology
> > > > >> > >>> as
> > > > >> > >>> > >> well),
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > so maybe we can just consider stateful tasks when
> > > > >> calculating
> > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > >> > >>> > >> factor
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > as a very brute force heuristic?
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 3.a. Thinking about this a bit more, maybe it's
> better
> > > > not
> > > > >> try
> > > > >> > >>> to
> > > > >> > >>> > >> tackle
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > an
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > unseen enemy just yet, and observe if it really
> emerges
> > > > >> later,
> > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > >> > >>> > by
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > then
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > we may have other ways to not starving the standby
> > > tasks,
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > >>> > >> example, by
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > using dedicate threads for standby tasks or even
> > > consider
> > > > >> > having
> > > > >> > >>> > >> higher
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > priority for standby than active so that we always
> try
> > > to
> > > > >> > >>> caught up
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > standby
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > first, then process active; and if active's lagging
> > > > >> compared
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > log-end-offset is increasing then we should
> increase
> > > > >> capacity,
> > > > >> > >>> etc
> > > > >> > >>> > >> etc.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > 4. Actually with KIP-429 this may not be the case:
> we
> > > may
> > > > >> not
> > > > >> > >>> call
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > onPartitionsRevoked prior to rebalance any more so
> > > would
> > > > >> not
> > > > >> > >>> transit
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > state
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > to PARTITIONS_REVOKED, and hence not cause the
> state of
> > > > the
> > > > >> > >>> instance
> > > > >> > >>> > >> to
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > be
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > REBALANCING. In other words, even if a instance is
> > > > >> undergoing
> > > > >> > a
> > > > >> > >>> > >> rebalance
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > it's state may still be RUNNING and it may still be
> > > > >> processing
> > > > >> > >>> > >> records at
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > the same time.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 12:14 PM John Roesler <
> > > > >> > john@confluent.io
> > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Hey Guozhang,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks for the review!
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 1. Yes, even with `num.standby.replicas := 0`, we
> > > will
> > > > >> still
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > temporarily
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allocate standby tasks to accomplish a
> no-downtime
> > > task
> > > > >> > >>> migration.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Although, I'd argue that this doesn't really
> violate
> > > > the
> > > > >> > >>> config,
> > > > >> > >>> > as
> > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > task isn't a true hot standby. As soon as it
> catches
> > > > up,
> > > > >> > we'll
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > rebalance
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > again, that task will become active, and the
> original
> > > > >> > instance
> > > > >> > >>> > that
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > hosted
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the active task will no longer have the task
> assigned
> > > > at
> > > > >> > all.
> > > > >> > >>> Once
> > > > >> > >>> > >> the
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > stateDirCleaner kicks in, we'll free the disk
> space
> > > > from
> > > > >> it,
> > > > >> > >>> and
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > return to
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the steady-state of having just one copy of the
> task
> > > in
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >>> > cluster.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > We can of course do without this, but I feel the
> > > > current
> > > > >> > >>> proposal
> > > > >> > >>> > is
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > operationally preferable, since it doesn't make
> > > > >> configuring
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > hot-standbys a
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > pre-requisite for fast rebalances.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 2. Yes, I think your interpretation is what we
> > > > intended.
> > > > >> The
> > > > >> > >>> > default
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor would be 1, as it is implicitly
> today.
> > > > >> What
> > > > >> > >>> this
> > > > >> > >>> > >> does is
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > allows operators to trade off less balanced
> > > assignments
> > > > >> > >>> against
> > > > >> > >>> > >> fewer
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > rebalances. If you have lots of space capacity in
> > > your
> > > > >> > >>> instances,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> this
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > may
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be a perfectly fine tradeoff, and you may prefer
> for
> > > > >> Streams
> > > > >> > >>> not
> > > > >> > >>> > to
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > bother
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > streaming GBs of data from the broker in pursuit
> of
> > > > >> perfect
> > > > >> > >>> > balance.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > Not
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > married to this configuration, though. It was
> > > inspired
> > > > by
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >>> > >> related
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > work
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > research we did.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3. I'll take a look
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 3a. I think this is a good idea. I'd classify it
> as a
> > > > >> type
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > >>> grey
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > failure
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > detection. It may make more sense to tackle grey
> > > > >> failures as
> > > > >> > >>> part
> > > > >> > >>> > of
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > heartbeat protocol (as I POCed here:
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/7096/files
> ).
> > > > WDYT?
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 4. Good catch! I didn't think about that before.
> > > > Looking
> > > > >> at
> > > > >> > it
> > > > >> > >>> > now,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > though,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > I wonder if we're actually protected already. The
> > > > >> > >>> stateDirCleaner
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > only executes if the instance is in RUNNING
> state,
> > > and
> > > > >> > KIP-441
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > proposes to
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > use "probing rebalances" to report task lag.
> Hence,
> > > > >> during
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > >>> > >> window
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > between when the instance reports a lag and the
> > > > assignor
> > > > >> > >>> makes a
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > decision
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > about it, the instance should remain in
> REBALANCING
> > > > >> state,
> > > > >> > >>> right?
> > > > >> > >>> > If
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > so,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > then this should prevent the race condition. If
> not,
> > > > >> then we
> > > > >> > >>> do
> > > > >> > >>> > >> indeed
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > need
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > to do something about it.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > 5. Good idea. I think that today, you can only
> see
> > > the
> > > > >> > >>> consumer
> > > > >> > >>> > lag,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > which
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > is a poor substitute. I'll add some metrics to
> the
> > > > >> proposal.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > Thanks again for the comments!
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > -John
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:27 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > >> > >>> wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Hello Sophie,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I left some
> comments
> > > on
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >>> wiki
> > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > and I
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > think I'm still not very clear on a couple or
> > > those:
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 1. With this proposal, does that mean with
> > > > >> > >>> num.standby.replicas
> > > > >> > >>> > ==
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > 0, we
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > may sometimes still have some standby tasks
> which
> > > may
> > > > >> > >>> violate
> > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > config?
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 2. I think I understand the rationale to
> consider
> > > > lags
> > > > >> > that
> > > > >> > >>> is
> > > > >> > >>> > >> below
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > the
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > specified threshold to be equal, rather than
> still
> > > > >> > >>> considering
> > > > >> > >>> > >> 5000
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > is
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > better than 5001 -- we do not want to
> > > "over-optimize"
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > >>> > >> potentially
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > falls
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > into endless rebalances back and forth.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > But I'm not clear about the rationale of the
> second
> > > > >> > >>> parameter of
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>>
> constrainedBalancedAssignment(StatefulTasksToRankedCandidates,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > balance_factor):
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Does that mean, e.g. with balance_factor of 3,
> we'd
> > > > >> > >>> consider two
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > assignments one resulting balance_factor 0 and
> one
> > > > >> > resulting
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > balance_factor
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3 to be equally optimized assignment and
> therefore
> > > > may
> > > > >> > "stop
> > > > >> > >>> > >> early"?
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > This
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > was not very convincing to me :P
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3. There are a couple of minor comments about
> the
> > > > >> > algorithm
> > > > >> > >>> > >> itself,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > left
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > on
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the wiki page since it needs to refer to the
> exact
> > > > line
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > >>> > better
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > displayed there.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 3.a Another wild thought about the threshold
> > > itself:
> > > > >> today
> > > > >> > >>> the
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > assignment
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > itself is memoryless, so we would not know if
> the
> > > > >> reported
> > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLag`
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > itself
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > is increasing or decreasing even if the current
> > > value
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> > >>> under
> > > > >> > >>> > the
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > threshold. I wonder if it worthy to make it a
> bit
> > > > more
> > > > >> > >>> > >> complicated to
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > track
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > task lag trend at the assignor? Practically it
> may
> > > > not
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> > >>> very
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > uncommon
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that stand-by tasks are not keeping up due to
> the
> > > > fact
> > > > >> > that
> > > > >> > >>> > other
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > active
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > tasks hosted on the same thread is starving the
> > > > standby
> > > > >> > >>> tasks.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 4. There's a potential race condition risk when
> > > > >> reporting
> > > > >> > >>> > >> `TaskLags`
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > in
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > subscription: right after reporting it to the
> > > leader,
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >>> > cleanup
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > thread
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > kicks in and deletes the state directory. If
> the
> > > task
> > > > >> was
> > > > >> > >>> > assigned
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > to the
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > host it would cause it to restore from
> beginning
> > > and
> > > > >> > >>> effectively
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > make the
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > seemingly optimized assignment very
> sub-optimal.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > To be on the safer side we should consider
> either
> > > > prune
> > > > >> > out
> > > > >> > >>> > those
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > that are "close to be cleaned up" in the
> > > > subscription,
> > > > >> or
> > > > >> > we
> > > > >> > >>> > >> should
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > delay
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > the cleanup right after we've included them in
> the
> > > > >> > >>> subscription
> > > > >> > >>> > in
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > case
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > they are been selected as assigned tasks by the
> > > > >> assignor.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > 5. This is a meta comment: I think it would be
> > > > helpful
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > >>> add
> > > > >> > >>> > some
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > user
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > visibility on the standby tasks lagging as
> well,
> > > via
> > > > >> > >>> metrics for
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > example.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > Today it is hard for us to observe how far are
> our
> > > > >> current
> > > > >> > >>> > standby
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > tasks
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > compared to the active tasks and whether that
> lag
> > > is
> > > > >> being
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > increasing or
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > decreasing. As a follow-up task, for example,
> the
> > > > >> > rebalance
> > > > >> > >>> > should
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > also
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > be
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > triggered if we realize that some standby
> task's
> > > lag
> > > > is
> > > > >> > >>> > increasing
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > indefinitely means that it cannot keep up
> (which is
> > > > >> > another
> > > > >> > >>> > >> indicator
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > either you need to add more resources with the
> > > > >> > num.standbys
> > > > >> > >>> or
> > > > >> > >>> > >> your
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > are
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > still not balanced enough).
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:32 PM Sophie
> Blee-Goldman
> > > <
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > sophie@confluent.io>
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Hey all,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > I'd like to kick off discussion on KIP-441,
> aimed
> > > > at
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > >>> long
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > restore
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > times
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > in Streams during which further active
> processing
> > > > >> and IQ
> > > > >> > >>> are
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > blocked.
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Please give it a read and let us know your
> > > thoughts
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > > Sophie
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > --
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > --
> > > > >> > >>> > >> > > -- Guozhang
> > > > >> > >>> > >> >
> > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> > >>> > >> --
> > > > >> > >>> > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > >> > >>> > >>
> > > > >> > >>> > >
> > > > >> > >>> >
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>> --
> > > > >> > >>> -- Guozhang
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- Guozhang
> > >
>
>