kafka-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Kafka 0.8.2 new producer blocking on metadata
Date Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:47:09 GMT
" preinitialize.metadata=true/false" can help to certain extent. if the
kafka cluster is down, then metadata won't be available for a long time
(not just the first msg). so to be safe, we have to set "
metadata.fetch.timeout.ms=1" to fail fast as Paul mentioned. I can also
echo Jay's comment that on-demand fetch of metadata might be more
efficient, since cluster may have many topics that a particular producer
may not care.

so I plan to do sth similar to what Paul described.
- metadata.fetch.timeout.ms=1
- enqueue msg to a pending queue when topic metadata not available.
- have a background thread check when metadata become available and drain
the pending queue
- optionally, prime topic metadata asynchronously during init (if

Just wondering whether above should be the default behavior  of best-effort
non-blocking delivery in kafka clients. then we don't have to reinvent the


On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Jay Kreps <jay.kreps@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think a separate queue will be a very simple solution to implement.
> Could you describe your use case a little bit more. It does seem to me that
> as long as the metadata fetch happens only once and the blocking has a
> tight time bound this should be okay in any use case I can imagine. And, of
> course, by default the client blocks anyway whenever you exhaust the memory
> buffer space. But it sounds like you feel it isn't. Maybe you could
> describe the scenario a bit?
> I think one thing we could do is what was discussed in another thread,
> namely add an option like
>   preinitialize.metadata=true/false
> which would default to false. When true this would cause the producer to
> just initialize metadata for all topics when it is created. Note that this
> then brings back the opposite problem--doing remote communication during
> initialization which tends to bite a lot of people. But since this would be
> an option that would default to false perhaps it would be less likely to
> come as a surprise.
> -Jay
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Steven Wu <stevenz3wu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1. it should be truly async in all cases.
> >
> > I understand some challenges that Jay listed in the other thread. But we
> > need a solution nonetheless. e.g. can we maintain a separate
> > list/queue/buffer for pending messages without metadata.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM, John Boardman <boardmanjohnw@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I was just fighting this same situation. I never expected the new
> > producer
> > > send() method to block as it returns a Future and accepts a Callback.
> > > However, when I tried my unit test, just replacing the old producer
> with
> > > the new, I immediately started getting timeouts waiting for metadata. I
> > > struggled with this until I went into the source code and found the
> > wait()
> > > that waits for the metadata.
> > >
> > > At that point I realized that this new "async" producer would have to
> be
> > > executed on its own thread, unlike the old producer, which complicates
> my
> > > code unnecessarily. I totally agree with Paul that the contract of
> send()
> > > is being completely violated with internal code that can block.
> > >
> > > I did try fetching the metadata first, but that only worked for a few
> > calls
> > > before the producer decided it was time to update the metadata again.
> > >
> > > Again, I agree with Paul that this API should be fixed so that it is
> > truly
> > > asynchronous in all cases. Otherwise, it cannot be used on the main
> > thread
> > > of an application as it will block and fail.
> > >
> >

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message