You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@kafka.apache.org by Rajini Sivaram <ra...@gmail.com> on 2018/04/04 18:13:29 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-257 - Configurable Quota Management
For compatibility reasons, we are now using Java rather than Scala for all
pluggable interfaces including those on the broker. There is already a KIP
to move Authorizer to Java as well. As we will be removing support for Java
7 in the next release, we can also use default methods in Java when we need
to update pluggable Java interfaces. So the plan is to use Java for all new
pluggable interfaces.
We already have the package org.apache.kafka.server, under which we have
the sub-package for policies, so it makes sense to define quota callback as
a Java interface here too.
If there are any concerns, please let me know. Otherwise I will update the
KIP and the associated PR.
Thank you,
Rajini
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Since there all the comments so far have been addressed, I will start vote
> for this KIP.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rajini
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Jun.
>>
>> 11. updatePartitionMetadata() provides all partitions with their leaders
>> so that callbacks that scale down quotas based on fraction of partitions
>> hosted on each broker may compute the scaling factor. Callbacks that scale
>> up quotas based on the partition count hosted on each broker can simply
>> filter out the others. I have updated the Javadoc in the KIP.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Rajini,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense.
>>>
>>> 11. We probably want to clarify in the interface that every time when
>>> updatePartitionMetadata() is called, the full list of partitions whose
>>> leader is on this broker will be passed in?
>>>
>>> Jun
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Rajini Sivaram <rajinisivaram@gmail.com
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi Jun,
>>> >
>>> > 12. Sorry, I had to revert the change that removed `
>>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quotaLimit()`. We are allowing quota callbacks to
>>> use
>>> > custom metric tags. For each request, quota manager uses `
>>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quota()` to map (user-principal, client-id) to the
>>> > metric tags that determine which clients share the quota. When quotas
>>> are
>>> > updated using `updateQuota` or `updatePartitionMetadata`, existing
>>> metrics
>>> > need to updated, but quota managers don't have a reverse mapping of
>>> metric
>>> > tags to (user-principal, client-id) for invoking`ClientQuotaCallback.
>>> > quota()
>>> > ` . Callbacks cannot return all updated metrics since they don't have
>>> > access to the metrics object and we don't want to require callbacks to
>>> > track all the entities for which metrics have been created (since they
>>> may
>>> > contain client-ids and hence need expiring). With the extra method,
>>> quota
>>> > manager traverses the metric list after `updateQuota` or `
>>> > updatePartitionMetadata` and obtains the latest value corresponding to
>>> each
>>> > metric based on the tags using `ClientQuotaCallback.quotaLimit()`.
>>> >
>>> > An alternative may be to delay quota metrics updates until the next
>>> request
>>> > that uses the metric. When we get sensors, we can check if the quota
>>> > configured in the metric matches the value returned by `
>>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quota()`. This will be slightly more expensive
>>> since we
>>> > need to check on every request, but the callback API as well as the
>>> quota
>>> > manager update code path would be simpler. What do you think?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > Rajini
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
>>> rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi Jun,
>>> > >
>>> > > Thank you for reviewing the KIP.
>>> > >
>>> > > 10. This is the current behaviour (this KIP retains the same
>>> behaviour
>>> > for
>>> > > the default quota callback). We include 'user' and 'client-id' tags
>>> in
>>> > > all the quota metrics, rather than omit tags at the moment.
>>> > >
>>> > > 11. Ah, I hadn't realised that. I wasn't expecting to include deleted
>>> > > partitions in updatePartitionMetadata. I have updated the Javadoc in
>>> the
>>> > > KIP to reflect that.
>>> > >
>>> > > 12. When quotas are updated as a result of `updateQuota` or `
>>> > > updatePartitionMetadata`, we may need to update quota bound for one
>>> or
>>> > > more existing metrics. I didn't want to expose metrics to the
>>> callback.
>>> > So `
>>> > > quotaLimit` was providing the new quotas corresponding to existing
>>> > > metrics. But perhaps a neater way to do this is to return updated
>>> quotas
>>> > as
>>> > > the return value of `updateQuota` and `updatePartitionMetadata` so
>>> that
>>> > > the quota manager can handle metrics updates for those. I have
>>> updated
>>> > the
>>> > > KIP.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> Hi, Rajini,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Thanks for the KIP. Looks good overall. A few comments below.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 10. "If <user> quota config is used, *user* tag is set to user
>>> principal
>>> > >> of
>>> > >> the session and *client-id* tag is set to empty string. " Could we
>>> just
>>> > >> omit such a tag if the value is empty?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 11. I think Viktor has a valid point on handling partition removal.
>>> > >> Currently, we use -2 as the leader to signal the deletion of a
>>> > partition.
>>> > >> Not sure if we want to depend on that in the interface since it's an
>>> > >> internal value.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 12. Could you explain a bit more the need for quotaLimit()? This is
>>> > called
>>> > >> after the updateQuota() call. Could we just let updateQuota do what
>>> > >> quotaLimit()
>>> > >> does?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Jun
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
>>> > rajinisivaram@gmail.com
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> > Hi all,
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > I have submitted KIP-257 to enable customisation of client quota
>>> > >> > computation:
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>>> > >> > 257+-+Configurable+Quota+Management
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > The KIP proposes to make quota management pluggable to enable
>>> > >> group-based
>>> > >> > and partition-based quotas for clients.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Feedback and suggestions are welcome.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Thank you...
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Regards,
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Rajini
>>> > >> >
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-257 - Configurable Quota Management
Posted by Rajini Sivaram <ra...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ismael,
Sorry, I had missed your note earlier. Jun had suggested changing the quota
callback methods so that there is only one method to obtain quota limits.
We used to have two methods, one which returned (*quotaLimit+metricTags)* and
another which returned *quotaLimit* given the *metricTags.* Now the first
method returns just the *metricTags* and we use the second to obtain
*quotaLimit.*
We have three scenarios:
1. Determine the quota for a request based on principal
2. Quota updated in ZK, we need to update quota limits on existing
metrics
3. Quota updated externally (e.g. quotas are stored in a database or
custom dynamic configs are used)
For the default quota configuration using ZooKeeper, the two new methods
work well. For 1) the first time we see a client, we get *metricTags* and
use *quotaLimit* to get the limit for those tags and for subsequent
requests, we just need *metricTags*. For 2) we get *quotaLimit* based on
*metricTags* to update existing metrics. In many cases, this could just be
a single metric update.
For 3), however, I had to add another method to check if quotas need
updating. The boolean method `quotaResetRequired()` is invoked when we are
determining quotas for a connection, and it basically does whatever is done
in 2) for externally managed quotas.
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> Hi Rajini,
>
> Can you share the motivation for the change? Not sure if the new approach
> is better.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The quota callback interface was updated based on Jun's suggestion during
> > the PR review. I have updated the KIP to reflect this.
> >
> > Let me know if there are any concerns.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Rajini
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks, Ismael.
> > >
> > > I have updated the KIP and the PR.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:37 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sounds good to me Rajini. Good catch spotting this before it's
> included
> > in
> > >> a release. :)
> > >>
> > >> Ismael
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > For compatibility reasons, we are now using Java rather than Scala
> for
> > >> all
> > >> > pluggable interfaces including those on the broker. There is
> already a
> > >> KIP
> > >> > to move Authorizer to Java as well. As we will be removing support
> for
> > >> Java
> > >> > 7 in the next release, we can also use default methods in Java when
> we
> > >> need
> > >> > to update pluggable Java interfaces. So the plan is to use Java for
> > all
> > >> new
> > >> > pluggable interfaces.
> > >> >
> > >> > We already have the package org.apache.kafka.server, under which we
> > have
> > >> > the sub-package for policies, so it makes sense to define quota
> > >> callback as
> > >> > a Java interface here too.
> > >> >
> > >> > If there are any concerns, please let me know. Otherwise I will
> update
> > >> the
> > >> > KIP and the associated PR.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thank you,
> > >> >
> > >> > Rajini
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > >> rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Since there all the comments so far have been addressed, I will
> > start
> > >> > vote
> > >> > > for this KIP.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Regards,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Rajini
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > >> rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> > >> > >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Thanks, Jun.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> 11. updatePartitionMetadata() provides all partitions with their
> > >> leaders
> > >> > >> so that callbacks that scale down quotas based on fraction of
> > >> partitions
> > >> > >> hosted on each broker may compute the scaling factor. Callbacks
> > that
> > >> > scale
> > >> > >> up quotas based on the partition count hosted on each broker can
> > >> simply
> > >> > >> filter out the others. I have updated the Javadoc in the KIP.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>> Hi, Rajini,
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense.
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> 11. We probably want to clarify in the interface that every time
> > >> when
> > >> > >>> updatePartitionMetadata() is called, the full list of partitions
> > >> whose
> > >> > >>> leader is on this broker will be passed in?
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Jun
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > >> > rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> wrote:
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> > Hi Jun,
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> > 12. Sorry, I had to revert the change that removed `
> > >> > >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quotaLimit()`. We are allowing quota
> > >> callbacks
> > >> > to
> > >> > >>> use
> > >> > >>> > custom metric tags. For each request, quota manager uses `
> > >> > >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quota()` to map (user-principal,
> client-id)
> > to
> > >> > the
> > >> > >>> > metric tags that determine which clients share the quota. When
> > >> quotas
> > >> > >>> are
> > >> > >>> > updated using `updateQuota` or `updatePartitionMetadata`,
> > >> existing
> > >> > >>> metrics
> > >> > >>> > need to updated, but quota managers don't have a reverse
> mapping
> > >> of
> > >> > >>> metric
> > >> > >>> > tags to (user-principal, client-id) for
> > >> invoking`ClientQuotaCallback.
> > >> > >>> > quota()
> > >> > >>> > ` . Callbacks cannot return all updated metrics since they
> don't
> > >> have
> > >> > >>> > access to the metrics object and we don't want to require
> > >> callbacks
> > >> > to
> > >> > >>> > track all the entities for which metrics have been created
> > (since
> > >> > they
> > >> > >>> may
> > >> > >>> > contain client-ids and hence need expiring). With the extra
> > >> method,
> > >> > >>> quota
> > >> > >>> > manager traverses the metric list after `updateQuota` or `
> > >> > >>> > updatePartitionMetadata` and obtains the latest value
> > >> corresponding
> > >> > to
> > >> > >>> each
> > >> > >>> > metric based on the tags using `ClientQuotaCallback.quotaLimi
> > >> t()`.
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> > An alternative may be to delay quota metrics updates until the
> > >> next
> > >> > >>> request
> > >> > >>> > that uses the metric. When we get sensors, we can check if the
> > >> quota
> > >> > >>> > configured in the metric matches the value returned by `
> > >> > >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quota()`. This will be slightly more
> > expensive
> > >> > >>> since we
> > >> > >>> > need to check on every request, but the callback API as well
> as
> > >> the
> > >> > >>> quota
> > >> > >>> > manager update code path would be simpler. What do you think?
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> > Thanks,
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> > Rajini
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > >> > >>> rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
> > >> > >>> > wrote:
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> > > Hi Jun,
> > >> > >>> > >
> > >> > >>> > > Thank you for reviewing the KIP.
> > >> > >>> > >
> > >> > >>> > > 10. This is the current behaviour (this KIP retains the same
> > >> > >>> behaviour
> > >> > >>> > for
> > >> > >>> > > the default quota callback). We include 'user' and
> 'client-id'
> > >> tags
> > >> > >>> in
> > >> > >>> > > all the quota metrics, rather than omit tags at the moment.
> > >> > >>> > >
> > >> > >>> > > 11. Ah, I hadn't realised that. I wasn't expecting to
> include
> > >> > deleted
> > >> > >>> > > partitions in updatePartitionMetadata. I have updated the
> > >> Javadoc
> > >> > in
> > >> > >>> the
> > >> > >>> > > KIP to reflect that.
> > >> > >>> > >
> > >> > >>> > > 12. When quotas are updated as a result of `updateQuota` or
> `
> > >> > >>> > > updatePartitionMetadata`, we may need to update quota bound
> > for
> > >> one
> > >> > >>> or
> > >> > >>> > > more existing metrics. I didn't want to expose metrics to
> the
> > >> > >>> callback.
> > >> > >>> > So `
> > >> > >>> > > quotaLimit` was providing the new quotas corresponding to
> > >> existing
> > >> > >>> > > metrics. But perhaps a neater way to do this is to return
> > >> updated
> > >> > >>> quotas
> > >> > >>> > as
> > >> > >>> > > the return value of `updateQuota` and
> > `updatePartitionMetadata`
> > >> so
> > >> > >>> that
> > >> > >>> > > the quota manager can handle metrics updates for those. I
> have
> > >> > >>> updated
> > >> > >>> > the
> > >> > >>> > > KIP.
> > >> > >>> > >
> > >> > >>> > >
> > >> > >>> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >>> > >
> > >> > >>> > >> Hi, Rajini,
> > >> > >>> > >>
> > >> > >>> > >> Thanks for the KIP. Looks good overall. A few comments
> below.
> > >> > >>> > >>
> > >> > >>> > >> 10. "If <user> quota config is used, *user* tag is set to
> > user
> > >> > >>> principal
> > >> > >>> > >> of
> > >> > >>> > >> the session and *client-id* tag is set to empty string. "
> > >> Could we
> > >> > >>> just
> > >> > >>> > >> omit such a tag if the value is empty?
> > >> > >>> > >>
> > >> > >>> > >> 11. I think Viktor has a valid point on handling partition
> > >> > removal.
> > >> > >>> > >> Currently, we use -2 as the leader to signal the deletion
> of
> > a
> > >> > >>> > partition.
> > >> > >>> > >> Not sure if we want to depend on that in the interface
> since
> > >> it's
> > >> > an
> > >> > >>> > >> internal value.
> > >> > >>> > >>
> > >> > >>> > >> 12. Could you explain a bit more the need for quotaLimit()?
> > >> This
> > >> > is
> > >> > >>> > called
> > >> > >>> > >> after the updateQuota() call. Could we just let updateQuota
> > do
> > >> > what
> > >> > >>> > >> quotaLimit()
> > >> > >>> > >> does?
> > >> > >>> > >>
> > >> > >>> > >> Jun
> > >> > >>> > >>
> > >> > >>> > >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > >> > >>> > rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> > >> > >>> > >> >
> > >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >>> > >>
> > >> > >>> > >> > Hi all,
> > >> > >>> > >> >
> > >> > >>> > >> > I have submitted KIP-257 to enable customisation of
> client
> > >> quota
> > >> > >>> > >> > computation:
> > >> > >>> > >> >
> > >> > >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > >> > >>> > >> > 257+-+Configurable+Quota+Management
> > >> > >>> > >> >
> > >> > >>> > >> >
> > >> > >>> > >> > The KIP proposes to make quota management pluggable to
> > enable
> > >> > >>> > >> group-based
> > >> > >>> > >> > and partition-based quotas for clients.
> > >> > >>> > >> >
> > >> > >>> > >> > Feedback and suggestions are welcome.
> > >> > >>> > >> >
> > >> > >>> > >> > Thank you...
> > >> > >>> > >> >
> > >> > >>> > >> > Regards,
> > >> > >>> > >> >
> > >> > >>> > >> > Rajini
> > >> > >>> > >> >
> > >> > >>> > >>
> > >> > >>> > >
> > >> > >>> > >
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-257 - Configurable Quota Management
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
Hi Rajini,
Can you share the motivation for the change? Not sure if the new approach
is better.
Ismael
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The quota callback interface was updated based on Jun's suggestion during
> the PR review. I have updated the KIP to reflect this.
>
> Let me know if there are any concerns.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rajini
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Ismael.
> >
> > I have updated the KIP and the PR.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:37 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Sounds good to me Rajini. Good catch spotting this before it's included
> in
> >> a release. :)
> >>
> >> Ismael
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > For compatibility reasons, we are now using Java rather than Scala for
> >> all
> >> > pluggable interfaces including those on the broker. There is already a
> >> KIP
> >> > to move Authorizer to Java as well. As we will be removing support for
> >> Java
> >> > 7 in the next release, we can also use default methods in Java when we
> >> need
> >> > to update pluggable Java interfaces. So the plan is to use Java for
> all
> >> new
> >> > pluggable interfaces.
> >> >
> >> > We already have the package org.apache.kafka.server, under which we
> have
> >> > the sub-package for policies, so it makes sense to define quota
> >> callback as
> >> > a Java interface here too.
> >> >
> >> > If there are any concerns, please let me know. Otherwise I will update
> >> the
> >> > KIP and the associated PR.
> >> >
> >> > Thank you,
> >> >
> >> > Rajini
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
> >> rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Since there all the comments so far have been addressed, I will
> start
> >> > vote
> >> > > for this KIP.
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > >
> >> > > Rajini
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
> >> rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> >> > >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Thanks, Jun.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> 11. updatePartitionMetadata() provides all partitions with their
> >> leaders
> >> > >> so that callbacks that scale down quotas based on fraction of
> >> partitions
> >> > >> hosted on each broker may compute the scaling factor. Callbacks
> that
> >> > scale
> >> > >> up quotas based on the partition count hosted on each broker can
> >> simply
> >> > >> filter out the others. I have updated the Javadoc in the KIP.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Hi, Rajini,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> 11. We probably want to clarify in the interface that every time
> >> when
> >> > >>> updatePartitionMetadata() is called, the full list of partitions
> >> whose
> >> > >>> leader is on this broker will be passed in?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Jun
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> >> > rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> > Hi Jun,
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > 12. Sorry, I had to revert the change that removed `
> >> > >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quotaLimit()`. We are allowing quota
> >> callbacks
> >> > to
> >> > >>> use
> >> > >>> > custom metric tags. For each request, quota manager uses `
> >> > >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quota()` to map (user-principal, client-id)
> to
> >> > the
> >> > >>> > metric tags that determine which clients share the quota. When
> >> quotas
> >> > >>> are
> >> > >>> > updated using `updateQuota` or `updatePartitionMetadata`,
> >> existing
> >> > >>> metrics
> >> > >>> > need to updated, but quota managers don't have a reverse mapping
> >> of
> >> > >>> metric
> >> > >>> > tags to (user-principal, client-id) for
> >> invoking`ClientQuotaCallback.
> >> > >>> > quota()
> >> > >>> > ` . Callbacks cannot return all updated metrics since they don't
> >> have
> >> > >>> > access to the metrics object and we don't want to require
> >> callbacks
> >> > to
> >> > >>> > track all the entities for which metrics have been created
> (since
> >> > they
> >> > >>> may
> >> > >>> > contain client-ids and hence need expiring). With the extra
> >> method,
> >> > >>> quota
> >> > >>> > manager traverses the metric list after `updateQuota` or `
> >> > >>> > updatePartitionMetadata` and obtains the latest value
> >> corresponding
> >> > to
> >> > >>> each
> >> > >>> > metric based on the tags using `ClientQuotaCallback.quotaLimi
> >> t()`.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > An alternative may be to delay quota metrics updates until the
> >> next
> >> > >>> request
> >> > >>> > that uses the metric. When we get sensors, we can check if the
> >> quota
> >> > >>> > configured in the metric matches the value returned by `
> >> > >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quota()`. This will be slightly more
> expensive
> >> > >>> since we
> >> > >>> > need to check on every request, but the callback API as well as
> >> the
> >> > >>> quota
> >> > >>> > manager update code path would be simpler. What do you think?
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > Thanks,
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > Rajini
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
> >> > >>> rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
> >> > >>> > wrote:
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > > Hi Jun,
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > > Thank you for reviewing the KIP.
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > > 10. This is the current behaviour (this KIP retains the same
> >> > >>> behaviour
> >> > >>> > for
> >> > >>> > > the default quota callback). We include 'user' and 'client-id'
> >> tags
> >> > >>> in
> >> > >>> > > all the quota metrics, rather than omit tags at the moment.
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > > 11. Ah, I hadn't realised that. I wasn't expecting to include
> >> > deleted
> >> > >>> > > partitions in updatePartitionMetadata. I have updated the
> >> Javadoc
> >> > in
> >> > >>> the
> >> > >>> > > KIP to reflect that.
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > > 12. When quotas are updated as a result of `updateQuota` or `
> >> > >>> > > updatePartitionMetadata`, we may need to update quota bound
> for
> >> one
> >> > >>> or
> >> > >>> > > more existing metrics. I didn't want to expose metrics to the
> >> > >>> callback.
> >> > >>> > So `
> >> > >>> > > quotaLimit` was providing the new quotas corresponding to
> >> existing
> >> > >>> > > metrics. But perhaps a neater way to do this is to return
> >> updated
> >> > >>> quotas
> >> > >>> > as
> >> > >>> > > the return value of `updateQuota` and
> `updatePartitionMetadata`
> >> so
> >> > >>> that
> >> > >>> > > the quota manager can handle metrics updates for those. I have
> >> > >>> updated
> >> > >>> > the
> >> > >>> > > KIP.
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > >> Hi, Rajini,
> >> > >>> > >>
> >> > >>> > >> Thanks for the KIP. Looks good overall. A few comments below.
> >> > >>> > >>
> >> > >>> > >> 10. "If <user> quota config is used, *user* tag is set to
> user
> >> > >>> principal
> >> > >>> > >> of
> >> > >>> > >> the session and *client-id* tag is set to empty string. "
> >> Could we
> >> > >>> just
> >> > >>> > >> omit such a tag if the value is empty?
> >> > >>> > >>
> >> > >>> > >> 11. I think Viktor has a valid point on handling partition
> >> > removal.
> >> > >>> > >> Currently, we use -2 as the leader to signal the deletion of
> a
> >> > >>> > partition.
> >> > >>> > >> Not sure if we want to depend on that in the interface since
> >> it's
> >> > an
> >> > >>> > >> internal value.
> >> > >>> > >>
> >> > >>> > >> 12. Could you explain a bit more the need for quotaLimit()?
> >> This
> >> > is
> >> > >>> > called
> >> > >>> > >> after the updateQuota() call. Could we just let updateQuota
> do
> >> > what
> >> > >>> > >> quotaLimit()
> >> > >>> > >> does?
> >> > >>> > >>
> >> > >>> > >> Jun
> >> > >>> > >>
> >> > >>> > >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> >> > >>> > rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> >> > >>> > >> >
> >> > >>> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>> > >>
> >> > >>> > >> > Hi all,
> >> > >>> > >> >
> >> > >>> > >> > I have submitted KIP-257 to enable customisation of client
> >> quota
> >> > >>> > >> > computation:
> >> > >>> > >> >
> >> > >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> >> > >>> > >> > 257+-+Configurable+Quota+Management
> >> > >>> > >> >
> >> > >>> > >> >
> >> > >>> > >> > The KIP proposes to make quota management pluggable to
> enable
> >> > >>> > >> group-based
> >> > >>> > >> > and partition-based quotas for clients.
> >> > >>> > >> >
> >> > >>> > >> > Feedback and suggestions are welcome.
> >> > >>> > >> >
> >> > >>> > >> > Thank you...
> >> > >>> > >> >
> >> > >>> > >> > Regards,
> >> > >>> > >> >
> >> > >>> > >> > Rajini
> >> > >>> > >> >
> >> > >>> > >>
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-257 - Configurable Quota Management
Posted by Rajini Sivaram <ra...@gmail.com>.
The quota callback interface was updated based on Jun's suggestion during
the PR review. I have updated the KIP to reflect this.
Let me know if there are any concerns.
Thanks,
Rajini
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks, Ismael.
>
> I have updated the KIP and the PR.
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:37 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> Sounds good to me Rajini. Good catch spotting this before it's included in
>> a release. :)
>>
>> Ismael
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > For compatibility reasons, we are now using Java rather than Scala for
>> all
>> > pluggable interfaces including those on the broker. There is already a
>> KIP
>> > to move Authorizer to Java as well. As we will be removing support for
>> Java
>> > 7 in the next release, we can also use default methods in Java when we
>> need
>> > to update pluggable Java interfaces. So the plan is to use Java for all
>> new
>> > pluggable interfaces.
>> >
>> > We already have the package org.apache.kafka.server, under which we have
>> > the sub-package for policies, so it makes sense to define quota
>> callback as
>> > a Java interface here too.
>> >
>> > If there are any concerns, please let me know. Otherwise I will update
>> the
>> > KIP and the associated PR.
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> >
>> > Rajini
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
>> rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Since there all the comments so far have been addressed, I will start
>> > vote
>> > > for this KIP.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > >
>> > > Rajini
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
>> rajinisivaram@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Thanks, Jun.
>> > >>
>> > >> 11. updatePartitionMetadata() provides all partitions with their
>> leaders
>> > >> so that callbacks that scale down quotas based on fraction of
>> partitions
>> > >> hosted on each broker may compute the scaling factor. Callbacks that
>> > scale
>> > >> up quotas based on the partition count hosted on each broker can
>> simply
>> > >> filter out the others. I have updated the Javadoc in the KIP.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Hi, Rajini,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> 11. We probably want to clarify in the interface that every time
>> when
>> > >>> updatePartitionMetadata() is called, the full list of partitions
>> whose
>> > >>> leader is on this broker will be passed in?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Jun
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
>> > rajinisivaram@gmail.com
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> > Hi Jun,
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > 12. Sorry, I had to revert the change that removed `
>> > >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quotaLimit()`. We are allowing quota
>> callbacks
>> > to
>> > >>> use
>> > >>> > custom metric tags. For each request, quota manager uses `
>> > >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quota()` to map (user-principal, client-id) to
>> > the
>> > >>> > metric tags that determine which clients share the quota. When
>> quotas
>> > >>> are
>> > >>> > updated using `updateQuota` or `updatePartitionMetadata`,
>> existing
>> > >>> metrics
>> > >>> > need to updated, but quota managers don't have a reverse mapping
>> of
>> > >>> metric
>> > >>> > tags to (user-principal, client-id) for
>> invoking`ClientQuotaCallback.
>> > >>> > quota()
>> > >>> > ` . Callbacks cannot return all updated metrics since they don't
>> have
>> > >>> > access to the metrics object and we don't want to require
>> callbacks
>> > to
>> > >>> > track all the entities for which metrics have been created (since
>> > they
>> > >>> may
>> > >>> > contain client-ids and hence need expiring). With the extra
>> method,
>> > >>> quota
>> > >>> > manager traverses the metric list after `updateQuota` or `
>> > >>> > updatePartitionMetadata` and obtains the latest value
>> corresponding
>> > to
>> > >>> each
>> > >>> > metric based on the tags using `ClientQuotaCallback.quotaLimi
>> t()`.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > An alternative may be to delay quota metrics updates until the
>> next
>> > >>> request
>> > >>> > that uses the metric. When we get sensors, we can check if the
>> quota
>> > >>> > configured in the metric matches the value returned by `
>> > >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quota()`. This will be slightly more expensive
>> > >>> since we
>> > >>> > need to check on every request, but the callback API as well as
>> the
>> > >>> quota
>> > >>> > manager update code path would be simpler. What do you think?
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > Thanks,
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > Rajini
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
>> > >>> rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
>> > >>> > wrote:
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > > Hi Jun,
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > Thank you for reviewing the KIP.
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > 10. This is the current behaviour (this KIP retains the same
>> > >>> behaviour
>> > >>> > for
>> > >>> > > the default quota callback). We include 'user' and 'client-id'
>> tags
>> > >>> in
>> > >>> > > all the quota metrics, rather than omit tags at the moment.
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > 11. Ah, I hadn't realised that. I wasn't expecting to include
>> > deleted
>> > >>> > > partitions in updatePartitionMetadata. I have updated the
>> Javadoc
>> > in
>> > >>> the
>> > >>> > > KIP to reflect that.
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > 12. When quotas are updated as a result of `updateQuota` or `
>> > >>> > > updatePartitionMetadata`, we may need to update quota bound for
>> one
>> > >>> or
>> > >>> > > more existing metrics. I didn't want to expose metrics to the
>> > >>> callback.
>> > >>> > So `
>> > >>> > > quotaLimit` was providing the new quotas corresponding to
>> existing
>> > >>> > > metrics. But perhaps a neater way to do this is to return
>> updated
>> > >>> quotas
>> > >>> > as
>> > >>> > > the return value of `updateQuota` and `updatePartitionMetadata`
>> so
>> > >>> that
>> > >>> > > the quota manager can handle metrics updates for those. I have
>> > >>> updated
>> > >>> > the
>> > >>> > > KIP.
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io>
>> wrote:
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > >> Hi, Rajini,
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> Thanks for the KIP. Looks good overall. A few comments below.
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> 10. "If <user> quota config is used, *user* tag is set to user
>> > >>> principal
>> > >>> > >> of
>> > >>> > >> the session and *client-id* tag is set to empty string. "
>> Could we
>> > >>> just
>> > >>> > >> omit such a tag if the value is empty?
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> 11. I think Viktor has a valid point on handling partition
>> > removal.
>> > >>> > >> Currently, we use -2 as the leader to signal the deletion of a
>> > >>> > partition.
>> > >>> > >> Not sure if we want to depend on that in the interface since
>> it's
>> > an
>> > >>> > >> internal value.
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> 12. Could you explain a bit more the need for quotaLimit()?
>> This
>> > is
>> > >>> > called
>> > >>> > >> after the updateQuota() call. Could we just let updateQuota do
>> > what
>> > >>> > >> quotaLimit()
>> > >>> > >> does?
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> Jun
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
>> > >>> > rajinisivaram@gmail.com
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >> > Hi all,
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > I have submitted KIP-257 to enable customisation of client
>> quota
>> > >>> > >> > computation:
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>> > >>> > >> > 257+-+Configurable+Quota+Management
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > The KIP proposes to make quota management pluggable to enable
>> > >>> > >> group-based
>> > >>> > >> > and partition-based quotas for clients.
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > Feedback and suggestions are welcome.
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > Thank you...
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > Regards,
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >> > Rajini
>> > >>> > >> >
>> > >>> > >>
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-257 - Configurable Quota Management
Posted by Rajini Sivaram <ra...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, Ismael.
I have updated the KIP and the PR.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:37 PM, Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> Sounds good to me Rajini. Good catch spotting this before it's included in
> a release. :)
>
> Ismael
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > For compatibility reasons, we are now using Java rather than Scala for
> all
> > pluggable interfaces including those on the broker. There is already a
> KIP
> > to move Authorizer to Java as well. As we will be removing support for
> Java
> > 7 in the next release, we can also use default methods in Java when we
> need
> > to update pluggable Java interfaces. So the plan is to use Java for all
> new
> > pluggable interfaces.
> >
> > We already have the package org.apache.kafka.server, under which we have
> > the sub-package for policies, so it makes sense to define quota callback
> as
> > a Java interface here too.
> >
> > If there are any concerns, please let me know. Otherwise I will update
> the
> > KIP and the associated PR.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Rajini
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Rajini Sivaram <rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Since there all the comments so far have been addressed, I will start
> > vote
> > > for this KIP.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rajini
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
> rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks, Jun.
> > >>
> > >> 11. updatePartitionMetadata() provides all partitions with their
> leaders
> > >> so that callbacks that scale down quotas based on fraction of
> partitions
> > >> hosted on each broker may compute the scaling factor. Callbacks that
> > scale
> > >> up quotas based on the partition count hosted on each broker can
> simply
> > >> filter out the others. I have updated the Javadoc in the KIP.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi, Rajini,
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense.
> > >>>
> > >>> 11. We probably want to clarify in the interface that every time when
> > >>> updatePartitionMetadata() is called, the full list of partitions
> whose
> > >>> leader is on this broker will be passed in?
> > >>>
> > >>> Jun
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> > >>> >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > Hi Jun,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > 12. Sorry, I had to revert the change that removed `
> > >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quotaLimit()`. We are allowing quota callbacks
> > to
> > >>> use
> > >>> > custom metric tags. For each request, quota manager uses `
> > >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quota()` to map (user-principal, client-id) to
> > the
> > >>> > metric tags that determine which clients share the quota. When
> quotas
> > >>> are
> > >>> > updated using `updateQuota` or `updatePartitionMetadata`, existing
> > >>> metrics
> > >>> > need to updated, but quota managers don't have a reverse mapping of
> > >>> metric
> > >>> > tags to (user-principal, client-id) for
> invoking`ClientQuotaCallback.
> > >>> > quota()
> > >>> > ` . Callbacks cannot return all updated metrics since they don't
> have
> > >>> > access to the metrics object and we don't want to require callbacks
> > to
> > >>> > track all the entities for which metrics have been created (since
> > they
> > >>> may
> > >>> > contain client-ids and hence need expiring). With the extra method,
> > >>> quota
> > >>> > manager traverses the metric list after `updateQuota` or `
> > >>> > updatePartitionMetadata` and obtains the latest value corresponding
> > to
> > >>> each
> > >>> > metric based on the tags using `ClientQuotaCallback.quotaLimit()`.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > An alternative may be to delay quota metrics updates until the next
> > >>> request
> > >>> > that uses the metric. When we get sensors, we can check if the
> quota
> > >>> > configured in the metric matches the value returned by `
> > >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quota()`. This will be slightly more expensive
> > >>> since we
> > >>> > need to check on every request, but the callback API as well as the
> > >>> quota
> > >>> > manager update code path would be simpler. What do you think?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Thanks,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Rajini
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > >>> rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > Hi Jun,
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Thank you for reviewing the KIP.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > 10. This is the current behaviour (this KIP retains the same
> > >>> behaviour
> > >>> > for
> > >>> > > the default quota callback). We include 'user' and 'client-id'
> tags
> > >>> in
> > >>> > > all the quota metrics, rather than omit tags at the moment.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > 11. Ah, I hadn't realised that. I wasn't expecting to include
> > deleted
> > >>> > > partitions in updatePartitionMetadata. I have updated the Javadoc
> > in
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > KIP to reflect that.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > 12. When quotas are updated as a result of `updateQuota` or `
> > >>> > > updatePartitionMetadata`, we may need to update quota bound for
> one
> > >>> or
> > >>> > > more existing metrics. I didn't want to expose metrics to the
> > >>> callback.
> > >>> > So `
> > >>> > > quotaLimit` was providing the new quotas corresponding to
> existing
> > >>> > > metrics. But perhaps a neater way to do this is to return updated
> > >>> quotas
> > >>> > as
> > >>> > > the return value of `updateQuota` and `updatePartitionMetadata`
> so
> > >>> that
> > >>> > > the quota manager can handle metrics updates for those. I have
> > >>> updated
> > >>> > the
> > >>> > > KIP.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >> Hi, Rajini,
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> Thanks for the KIP. Looks good overall. A few comments below.
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> 10. "If <user> quota config is used, *user* tag is set to user
> > >>> principal
> > >>> > >> of
> > >>> > >> the session and *client-id* tag is set to empty string. " Could
> we
> > >>> just
> > >>> > >> omit such a tag if the value is empty?
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> 11. I think Viktor has a valid point on handling partition
> > removal.
> > >>> > >> Currently, we use -2 as the leader to signal the deletion of a
> > >>> > partition.
> > >>> > >> Not sure if we want to depend on that in the interface since
> it's
> > an
> > >>> > >> internal value.
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> 12. Could you explain a bit more the need for quotaLimit()? This
> > is
> > >>> > called
> > >>> > >> after the updateQuota() call. Could we just let updateQuota do
> > what
> > >>> > >> quotaLimit()
> > >>> > >> does?
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> Jun
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > >>> > rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> wrote:
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >> > Hi all,
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> > I have submitted KIP-257 to enable customisation of client
> quota
> > >>> > >> > computation:
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > >>> > >> > 257+-+Configurable+Quota+Management
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> > The KIP proposes to make quota management pluggable to enable
> > >>> > >> group-based
> > >>> > >> > and partition-based quotas for clients.
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> > Feedback and suggestions are welcome.
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> > Thank you...
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> > Regards,
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >> > Rajini
> > >>> > >> >
> > >>> > >>
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-257 - Configurable Quota Management
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
Sounds good to me Rajini. Good catch spotting this before it's included in
a release. :)
Ismael
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> For compatibility reasons, we are now using Java rather than Scala for all
> pluggable interfaces including those on the broker. There is already a KIP
> to move Authorizer to Java as well. As we will be removing support for Java
> 7 in the next release, we can also use default methods in Java when we need
> to update pluggable Java interfaces. So the plan is to use Java for all new
> pluggable interfaces.
>
> We already have the package org.apache.kafka.server, under which we have
> the sub-package for policies, so it makes sense to define quota callback as
> a Java interface here too.
>
> If there are any concerns, please let me know. Otherwise I will update the
> KIP and the associated PR.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Rajini
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Since there all the comments so far have been addressed, I will start
> vote
> > for this KIP.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rajini
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Rajini Sivaram <rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks, Jun.
> >>
> >> 11. updatePartitionMetadata() provides all partitions with their leaders
> >> so that callbacks that scale down quotas based on fraction of partitions
> >> hosted on each broker may compute the scaling factor. Callbacks that
> scale
> >> up quotas based on the partition count hosted on each broker can simply
> >> filter out the others. I have updated the Javadoc in the KIP.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, Rajini,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense.
> >>>
> >>> 11. We probably want to clarify in the interface that every time when
> >>> updatePartitionMetadata() is called, the full list of partitions whose
> >>> leader is on this broker will be passed in?
> >>>
> >>> Jun
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> >>> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Hi Jun,
> >>> >
> >>> > 12. Sorry, I had to revert the change that removed `
> >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quotaLimit()`. We are allowing quota callbacks
> to
> >>> use
> >>> > custom metric tags. For each request, quota manager uses `
> >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quota()` to map (user-principal, client-id) to
> the
> >>> > metric tags that determine which clients share the quota. When quotas
> >>> are
> >>> > updated using `updateQuota` or `updatePartitionMetadata`, existing
> >>> metrics
> >>> > need to updated, but quota managers don't have a reverse mapping of
> >>> metric
> >>> > tags to (user-principal, client-id) for invoking`ClientQuotaCallback.
> >>> > quota()
> >>> > ` . Callbacks cannot return all updated metrics since they don't have
> >>> > access to the metrics object and we don't want to require callbacks
> to
> >>> > track all the entities for which metrics have been created (since
> they
> >>> may
> >>> > contain client-ids and hence need expiring). With the extra method,
> >>> quota
> >>> > manager traverses the metric list after `updateQuota` or `
> >>> > updatePartitionMetadata` and obtains the latest value corresponding
> to
> >>> each
> >>> > metric based on the tags using `ClientQuotaCallback.quotaLimit()`.
> >>> >
> >>> > An alternative may be to delay quota metrics updates until the next
> >>> request
> >>> > that uses the metric. When we get sensors, we can check if the quota
> >>> > configured in the metric matches the value returned by `
> >>> > ClientQuotaCallback.quota()`. This will be slightly more expensive
> >>> since we
> >>> > need to check on every request, but the callback API as well as the
> >>> quota
> >>> > manager update code path would be simpler. What do you think?
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> >
> >>> > Rajini
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
> >>> rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Hi Jun,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Thank you for reviewing the KIP.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > 10. This is the current behaviour (this KIP retains the same
> >>> behaviour
> >>> > for
> >>> > > the default quota callback). We include 'user' and 'client-id' tags
> >>> in
> >>> > > all the quota metrics, rather than omit tags at the moment.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > 11. Ah, I hadn't realised that. I wasn't expecting to include
> deleted
> >>> > > partitions in updatePartitionMetadata. I have updated the Javadoc
> in
> >>> the
> >>> > > KIP to reflect that.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > 12. When quotas are updated as a result of `updateQuota` or `
> >>> > > updatePartitionMetadata`, we may need to update quota bound for one
> >>> or
> >>> > > more existing metrics. I didn't want to expose metrics to the
> >>> callback.
> >>> > So `
> >>> > > quotaLimit` was providing the new quotas corresponding to existing
> >>> > > metrics. But perhaps a neater way to do this is to return updated
> >>> quotas
> >>> > as
> >>> > > the return value of `updateQuota` and `updatePartitionMetadata` so
> >>> that
> >>> > > the quota manager can handle metrics updates for those. I have
> >>> updated
> >>> > the
> >>> > > KIP.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:57 PM, Jun Rao <ju...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >> Hi, Rajini,
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Thanks for the KIP. Looks good overall. A few comments below.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> 10. "If <user> quota config is used, *user* tag is set to user
> >>> principal
> >>> > >> of
> >>> > >> the session and *client-id* tag is set to empty string. " Could we
> >>> just
> >>> > >> omit such a tag if the value is empty?
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> 11. I think Viktor has a valid point on handling partition
> removal.
> >>> > >> Currently, we use -2 as the leader to signal the deletion of a
> >>> > partition.
> >>> > >> Not sure if we want to depend on that in the interface since it's
> an
> >>> > >> internal value.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> 12. Could you explain a bit more the need for quotaLimit()? This
> is
> >>> > called
> >>> > >> after the updateQuota() call. Could we just let updateQuota do
> what
> >>> > >> quotaLimit()
> >>> > >> does?
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Jun
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> >>> > rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> wrote:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> > Hi all,
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > I have submitted KIP-257 to enable customisation of client quota
> >>> > >> > computation:
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> >>> > >> > 257+-+Configurable+Quota+Management
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > The KIP proposes to make quota management pluggable to enable
> >>> > >> group-based
> >>> > >> > and partition-based quotas for clients.
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Feedback and suggestions are welcome.
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Thank you...
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Regards,
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Rajini
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>