|
| 1 | +# PIP-381: Handle large PositionInfo state |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +# Background knowledge |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +In case of KEY_SHARED subscription and out-of-order acknowledgments, |
| 6 | +the PositionInfo state can be persisted to preserve the state, |
| 7 | +with configurable maximum number of ranges to persist: |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +``` |
| 10 | +# Max number of "acknowledgment holes" that are going to be persistently stored. |
| 11 | +# When acknowledging out of order, a consumer will leave holes that are supposed |
| 12 | +# to be quickly filled by acking all the messages. The information of which |
| 13 | +# messages are acknowledged is persisted by compressing in "ranges" of messages |
| 14 | +# that were acknowledged. After the max number of ranges is reached, the information |
| 15 | +# will only be tracked in memory and messages will be redelivered in case of |
| 16 | +# crashes. |
| 17 | +managedLedgerMaxUnackedRangesToPersist=10000 |
| 18 | +``` |
| 19 | + |
| 20 | +The PositionInfo state is stored to the BookKeeper as a single entry, and it can grow large if the number of ranges is large. |
| 21 | +Currently, this means that BookKeeper can fail persisting too large PositionInfo state, e.g. over 1MB |
| 22 | +by default and the ManagedCursor recovery on topic reload might not succeed. |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +There is an abandoned PIP-81 for similar problem, this PIP takes over. |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +# Motivation |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +While keeping the number of ranges low to prevent such problems is a common sense solution, there are cases |
| 29 | +where the higher number of ranges is required. For example, in case of the JMS protocol handler, |
| 30 | +JMS consumers with filters may end up processing data out of order and/or at different speed, |
| 31 | +and the number of ranges can grow large. |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | +# Goals |
| 34 | + |
| 35 | +Store the PositionInfo state in a BookKeeper ledger as multiple entries if the state grows too large to be stored as a single entry. |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +## In Scope |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | +Transparent backwards compatibility if the PositionInfo state is small enough. |
| 40 | + |
| 41 | +## Out of Scope |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | +Backwards compatibility in case of the PositionInfo state is too large to be stored as a single entry. |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +# High Level Design |
| 46 | + |
| 47 | +Cursor state writes and reads are happening at the same cases as currently, without changes. |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +Write path: |
| 50 | + |
| 51 | +1. serialize the PositionInfo state to a byte array. |
| 52 | +2. if the byte array is smaller than the threshold, store it as a single entry, as now. Done. |
| 53 | +3. if the byte array is larger than the threshold, split it to smaller chunks and store the chunks in a BookKeeper ledger. |
| 54 | +4. write the "footer" into the metadata store as a last entry. |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +See `persistPositionToLedger()` in `ManagedCursorImpl` for the implementation. |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | +The footer is a JSON representation of |
| 59 | + |
| 60 | +```java |
| 61 | + public static final class ChunkSequenceFooter { |
| 62 | + private int numParts; |
| 63 | + private int length; |
| 64 | + } |
| 65 | +``` |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +Read path: |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +1. read the last entry from the metadata store. |
| 70 | +2. if the entry does not appear to be a JSON, treat it as serialized PositionInfo state and use it as is. Done. |
| 71 | +3. if the footer is a JSON, parse number of chunks and length from the json. |
| 72 | +4. read the chunks from the BookKeeper ledger (entries from `startPos = footerPosition - chunkSequenceFooter.numParts` to `footerPosition - 1`) and merge them. |
| 73 | +5. parse the merged byte array as a PositionInfo state. |
| 74 | + |
| 75 | +See `recoverFromLedgerByEntryId()` in `ManagedCursorImpl` for the implementation. |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +## Design & Implementation Details |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | +Proposed implementation: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22799 |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +## Public-facing Changes |
| 82 | + |
| 83 | +Nothing |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | +### Public API |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | +None |
| 88 | + |
| 89 | +### Binary protocol |
| 90 | + |
| 91 | +No public-facing changes |
| 92 | + |
| 93 | +### Configuration |
| 94 | + |
| 95 | +* **managedLedgerMaxUnackedRangesToPersist**: int, default 10000 (existing parameter). Controls number of unacked ranges to store. |
| 96 | +* **persistentUnackedRangesWithMultipleEntriesEnabled**: boolean, default false. If true, the PositionInfo state is stored as multiple entries in BookKeeper if it grows too large. |
| 97 | +* **persistentUnackedRangesMaxEntrySize**: int, default 1MB. Maximum size of a single entry in BookKeeper, in bytes. |
| 98 | +* **cursorInfoCompressionType**: string, default "NONE". Compression type to use for the PositionInfo state. |
| 99 | + |
| 100 | +### CLI |
| 101 | + |
| 102 | +None |
| 103 | + |
| 104 | +### Metrics |
| 105 | + |
| 106 | +<!-- |
| 107 | +For each metric provide: |
| 108 | +* Full name |
| 109 | +* Description |
| 110 | +* Attributes (labels) |
| 111 | +* Unit |
| 112 | +--> |
| 113 | + |
| 114 | + |
| 115 | +# Monitoring |
| 116 | + |
| 117 | +Existing monitoring should be sufficient. |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | +# Security Considerations |
| 120 | + |
| 121 | +N/A |
| 122 | + |
| 123 | +# Backward & Forward Compatibility |
| 124 | + |
| 125 | +## Upgrade |
| 126 | + |
| 127 | +Not affected, just upgrade. |
| 128 | + |
| 129 | +## Downgrade / Rollback |
| 130 | + |
| 131 | +Not affected, just downgrade **as long as the managedLedgerMaxUnackedRangesToPersist was in the range to fit it into a single entry in BK**. |
| 132 | + |
| 133 | +## Pulsar Geo-Replication Upgrade & Downgrade/Rollback Considerations |
| 134 | + |
| 135 | +Not affected AFAIK. |
| 136 | + |
| 137 | +# Alternatives |
| 138 | + |
| 139 | +1. Do nothing. Keep the number of ranges low. This does not fit some use cases. |
| 140 | +2. Come up with an extremely efficient storage format for the unacked ranges to fit them into a single entry all the time for e.g. 10mil ranges. This breaks backwards compatibility and the feasibility is unclear. |
| 141 | + |
| 142 | +# General Notes |
| 143 | + |
| 144 | +# Links |
| 145 | + |
| 146 | +* Proposed implementation: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22799 |
| 147 | +* PIP-81: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-81:-Split-the-individual-acknowledgments-into-multiple-entries |
| 148 | +* PR that implements better storage format for the unacked ranges (alternative 2): https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/9292 |
| 149 | + |
| 150 | +ML discussion and voting threads: |
| 151 | + |
| 152 | +* Mailing List discussion thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/8sm0h804v5914zowghrqxr92fp7c255d |
| 153 | +* Mailing List voting thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/q31fx0rox9tdt34xsmo1ol1l76q8vk99 |
0 commit comments