Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Kafka >> mail # user >> Handling consumer rebalance when implementing synchronous auto-offset commit


+
Jason Rosenberg 2013-10-15, 23:17
+
Jun Rao 2013-10-16, 04:01
+
Jason Rosenberg 2013-10-16, 04:21
+
Jun Rao 2013-10-16, 14:52
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Handling consumer rebalance when implementing synchronous auto-offset commit
That would be great.  Additionally, in the new api, it would be awesome
augment the default auto-commit functionality to allow client code to mark
a message for commit only after processing a message successfully!
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Jun Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jun
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Jason Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jun,
> >
> > 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).
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > 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
> > commitOffsets
> > > during rebalancing.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jun
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Jason Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > committed.
> > > >  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
> > after
> > > > the next message has been issued via a call to 'next()' on the
> > > > ConsumerIterator.
> > > >
> > > > The builtin 'auto.commit.enable' feature unfortunately allows commits
> > to
> > > > happen on any message that has been returned via
> > ConsumerIterator.next().
> > > >  But if the consumer goes down before actually processing the
> message,
> > or
> > > > 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
> > support
> > > > 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

 
+
Joel Koshy 2013-10-16, 21:20
+
Jason Rosenberg 2013-10-17, 03:00
+
Joel Koshy 2013-10-18, 05:11
+
Jason Rosenberg 2013-10-18, 22:54
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB