-Re: Handling consumer rebalance when implementing synchronous auto-offset commit
For manual offset commits, it will be useful to have some kind of API that
informs the client when a rebalance is going to happen. We can think about
this when we do the client rewrite.
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Jason Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, sorry, I think that was the basis for my question. When auto commit
> is enabled, special care is taken to make sure things are auto-committed
> during a rebalance. This is needed because when a topic moves off of a
> consumer thread (since it is being rebalanced to another one), it's as if
> that topic is being shutdown on that connector, and any not-yet-committed
> messages need to be committed before letting go of the topic.
> So, my question is around trying to understand if there's a way I can
> reproduce similar functionality using my own sync auto commit
> implementation (and I'm not sure there is). It seems that when there's a
> rebalance, all processed but not-yet-committed offsets will not be
> committed, and thus there will be no way to prevent pretty massive
> duplicate consumption on a rebalance. Is that about right? Or is there
> someway around this that I'm not seeing?
> The auto-commit functionality that's builtin is so close to being all that
> anyone would need, except it has a glaring weakness, in that it will cause
> messages to be lost from time to time, and so I don't know that it will
> meet the needs of trying to have reliable delivery (with duplicates ok).
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Jun Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If auto commit is disabled, the consumer connector won't call
> > during rebalancing.
> > Thanks,
> > Jun
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Jason Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > I'm looking at implementing a synchronous auto offset commit solution.
> > > People have discussed the need for this in previous
> > > threads......Basically, in my consumer loop, I want to make sure a
> > message
> > > has been actually processed before allowing it's offset to be
> > > But I don't want to commit on every message, since that would be too
> > > expensive. So, I want to use the 'auto.commit.interval.ms' to
> > > periodically
> > > call commitOffsets, but only after a message is processed, but not
> > > the next message has been issued via a call to 'next()' on the
> > > ConsumerIterator.
> > >
> > > The builtin 'auto.commit.enable' feature unfortunately allows commits
> > > happen on any message that has been returned via
> > > But if the consumer goes down before actually processing the message,
> > > if it hangs indefinitely for some reason, then this message will get
> > > committed before it has actually been consumed successfully.
> > >
> > > I think there are issues with trying to implement this on top of the
> > > high-level consumer api. First, I need to worry about multiple threads
> > > consuming in the same connector (so for now I'm limiting this to
> > > only 1 thread).
> > >
> > > Also, when shutting down the connector, I need to make sure any pending
> > > messages are committed before allowing the connector to shutdown. So,
> > that
> > > seems easy enough to handle.
> > >
> > > One thing I'm more concerned with, is what happens when there's a
> > consumer
> > > rebalance. Looking at the ZookeeperConsumerConnector code, it seems
> > there
> > > are explicit calls to commitOffsets during the rebalance. I'm not sure
> > how
> > > to handle that from the high-level api (and do I need to worry about
> > > that?).
> > >
> > > Thanks for any insight.
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >