Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Table of Contents

This page is meant as a template for writing a KIP. To create a KIP choose Tools->Copy on this page and modify with your content and replace the heading with the next KIP number and a description of your issue. Replace anything in italics with your own description.

Status

Current state[One of "Under Discussion", "Accepted", "Rejected"]

Discussion thread: here [Change the link from the KIP proposal email archive to your own email thread]
JIRA: here [Change the link from KAFKA-1 to your own ticket]TBD

JIRA

Jira
serverASF JIRA
serverId5aa69414-a9e9-3523-82ec-879b028fb15b
keyKAFKA-8397

Please keep the discussion on the mailing list rather than commenting on the wiki (wiki discussions get unwieldy fast).

Motivation

Describe the problems you are trying to solve.

Public Interfaces

Briefly list any new interfaces that will be introduced as part of this proposal or any existing interfaces that will be removed or changed. The purpose of this section is to concisely call out the public contract that will come along with this feature.

A public interface is any change to the following:

  • Binary log format

  • The network protocol and api behavior

  • Any class in the public packages under clientsConfiguration, especially client configuration

    • org/apache/kafka/common/serialization

    • org/apache/kafka/common

    • org/apache/kafka/common/errors

    • org/apache/kafka/clients/producer

    • org/apache/kafka/clients/consumer (eventually, once stable)

  • Monitoring

  • Command line tools and arguments

  • Anything else that will likely break existing users in some way when they upgrade

Proposed Changes

Describe the new thing you want to do in appropriate detail. This may be fairly extensive and have large subsections of its own. Or it may be a few sentences. Use judgement based on the scope of the change.

Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan

  • What impact (if any) will there be on existing users?
  • If we are changing behavior how will we phase out the older behavior?
  • If we need special migration tools, describe them here.
  • When will we remove the existing behavior?

Rejected Alternatives

Rebalance during scaling up is always painful. Every newly joined member will keep the group at rebalancing stage until all of new instances finished bootstrapping. There could be multiple shuffling of active tasks around existing and new instances, thus decreasing the entire system availability. This negative impact has been mitigated after we introduced KIP-345Under static membership, user could provide a list of hard-coded `group.instance.id`s to pre-register their identities on broker if the new host info is known, so that broker coordinator could respond to scaling operations more intelligently. For example when we scale up the fleet by defining 4 new client instance ids, the server shall wait until all 4 new members to join the group before kicking out only one rebalance, instead of four in the worst case.

Proposed Changes

This change requires us to change JoinGroup protocol to batch mode in order to easily scale multiple members at once.

Public Interfaces

We will bump JoinGroup request/response version to support batch adding members.

Code Block
JoinGroupRequest => GroupId SessionTimeout RebalanceTimeout MemberId GroupInstanceId ProtocolType GroupProtocols
  GroupId             => String
  SessionTimeout      => int32
  RebalanceTimeout    => int32
  MemberId            => String // removed
  GroupInstanceId     => String // removed
  ProtocolType        => String 
  GroupProtocols      => [Protocol MemberMetadata]
  Protocol            => String // removed
  MemberMetadata      => bytes  // removed
  JoinGroupMembers    => []JoinGroupRequestMember // new
 						   MemberId            => String // new
						   GroupInstanceId     => String // new
						   Protocol            => String // new

JoinGroupResponse => ThrottleTime ErrorCode GenerationId ProtocolName LeaderId MemberId Members
  ThrottleTime           => int16
  ErrorCode              => int16  // removed
  GenerationId           => int32
  ProtocolName           => String
  LeaderId               => String
  MemberId               => String // removed
  Members                => []JoinGroupResponseMember 	
							  MemberId         => String
                              GroupInstanceId  => String
                              Metadata         => bytes
  MemberJoinResponseList => []JoinGroupResult  // new
							  MemberInfo  => JoinGroupResponseMember // new	
							  ErrorCode   => int16 // new

A new admin request shall be created for user to supply a list of `group.instance.id` to batch join the group:

Code Block
languagejava
titleAdminClient.java
public static AddMemberResult addMembersToGroup(String groupId, list<String> groupInstanceIdsToAdd, AddMemberToGroupOptions options);

In the meantime, for better visibility for static members, we are also going to bump DescribeGroup request/response protocol to include `group.instance.id`:

Code Block
DescribeGroupRequest => ThrottleTime Groups
  ThrottleTime           => int16
  Groups                 => []DescribeGroups
							  ErrorCode        => int16
							  GroupId          => String
							  GroupState       => String
							  ProtocolType     => String
							  ProtocolData     => int16
							  Members          => []DescribedGroupMember
									    			MemberId   => String
										    		GroupInstanceId  => String // new
											    	ClientId         => String							
										    		ClientHost       => String
											    	MemberMetadata   => bytes
    												MemberAssignment => bytes

Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan

  • User needs to upgrade broker to latest version to be able to use this new feature.
  • Since we are only introducing new admin API, the change should be backward compatible.

Rejected Alternatives

We could trigger multiple join group requests at the same time without changing JoinGroup protocol. However, considering our change in LeaveGroupRequest, it's hard to handle multiple responses within single admin client request. Changing the protocol to adapt to this change shall be more consistentIf there are alternative ways of accomplishing the same thing, what were they? The purpose of this section is to motivate why the design is the way it is and not some other way.