Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Why mark maxPendingPersists as deprecated #7386

Closed
QiuMM opened this issue Mar 31, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

Why mark maxPendingPersists as deprecated #7386

QiuMM opened this issue Mar 31, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

@QiuMM
Copy link
Member

QiuMM commented Mar 31, 2019

In #4815, the maxPendingPersists in KafkaTuningConfig has been marked as deprecated and the value is always zero so that I can't change it ( I use the version of 0.12.2), but in the up-to-date code, the SeekableStreamIndexTaskTuningConfig#maxPendingPersists can be set again by users. I wonder the internal reason of these changes, any problem of maxPendingPersists? I think this parameter is useful if there are some pending persists, tweak this parameter can help avoid the blocking of ingestion. @pjain1 @jsun98 .

@gianm
Copy link
Contributor

gianm commented Apr 1, 2019

I'm not sure if there was a correctness reason for doing this or not so I can't speak to that.

Its behavior can definitely be unintuitive with regard to memory use though: each pending persist adds another potentially-full IncrementalIndex and so increases memory requirements beyond what you might expect based on a particular maxRowsInMemory setting. But I'm not sure if that's why it was marked deprecated or not. I don't see much discussion about it.

@QiuMM
Copy link
Member Author

QiuMM commented Apr 2, 2019

@gianm thanks for your reply, tweak the maxRowsInMemory may not help since increase it would also increase the persist time (because more data need to persist), so if during the persist time, more than one potentially-full IncrementalIndex is produced, then there may still be pending persists. In such situation, maxPendingPersists is more useful.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jun 20, 2019

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Jun 20, 2019
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jul 4, 2019

This issue has been closed due to lack of activity. If you think that is incorrect, or the issue requires additional review, you can revive the issue at any time.

@stale stale bot closed this as completed Jul 4, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants