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

[improve][broker] Add missing configuration keys for caching catch-up reads #22295

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 19, 2024

Conversation

lhotari
Copy link
Member

@lhotari lhotari commented Mar 18, 2024

Motivation

PR #12258 added support for caching catch-up reads. However, the PR missed adding the configuration keys to broker.conf.

Modifications

Documentation

  • doc
  • doc-required
  • doc-not-needed
  • doc-complete

@lhotari lhotari self-assigned this Mar 18, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the doc-not-needed Your PR changes do not impact docs label Mar 18, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@hangc0276 hangc0276 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need to update the default value here?

private int minimumBacklogEntriesForCaching = 1000;
private int maxBacklogBetweenCursorsForCaching = 1000;

@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Mar 19, 2024

Do we need to update the default value here?

private int minimumBacklogEntriesForCaching = 1000;
private int maxBacklogBetweenCursorsForCaching = 1000;

There's a test that makes sure that the defaults match in broker.conf and ServiceConfiguration.java . The question about the difference was never replied in the original PR by @rdhabalia, so we just have to make a guess of a good default since the original PR has 2 set of values: in standalone.conf and in ServiceConfiguration.java.

I'll revisit the changes in this PR so that I'll make the values match what is in ServiceConfiguration.java since that's what has been in use until now.

@lhotari lhotari requested a review from Technoboy- March 19, 2024 08:18
Copy link
Contributor

@hanmz hanmz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@lhotari lhotari dismissed Technoboy-’s stale review March 19, 2024 09:52

outdated review

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 73.63%. Comparing base (bbc6224) to head (162e2a0).
Report is 66 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #22295      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     73.57%   73.63%   +0.05%     
+ Complexity    32624    32237     -387     
============================================
  Files          1877     1887      +10     
  Lines        139502   139453      -49     
  Branches      15299    15293       -6     
============================================
+ Hits         102638   102682      +44     
+ Misses        28908    28808     -100     
- Partials       7956     7963       +7     
Flag Coverage Δ
inttests 26.92% <ø> (+2.33%) ⬆️
systests 24.48% <ø> (+0.15%) ⬆️
unittests 72.88% <ø> (+0.04%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

see 88 files with indirect coverage changes

@Technoboy-
Copy link
Contributor

Do we need to update the default value here?

private int minimumBacklogEntriesForCaching = 1000;
private int maxBacklogBetweenCursorsForCaching = 1000;

There's a test that makes sure that the defaults match in broker.conf and ServiceConfiguration.java . The question about the difference was never replied in the original PR by @rdhabalia, so we just have to make a guess of a good default since the original PR has 2 set of values: in standalone.conf and in ServiceConfiguration.java.

I'll revisit the changes in this PR so that I'll make the values match what is in ServiceConfiguration.java since that's what has been in use until now.

Before we get the response from @rdhabalia , we'd better not merge this patch.

@lhotari
Copy link
Member Author

lhotari commented Mar 19, 2024

Before we get the response from @rdhabalia , we'd better not merge this patch.

@Technoboy- Why? This PR isn't doing anything harmful. We can always revisit later.

@lhotari lhotari merged commit 2803ba2 into apache:master Mar 19, 2024
49 checks passed
lhotari added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 19, 2024
… reads (#22295)

(cherry picked from commit 2803ba2)

# Conflicts:
#	conf/broker.conf
lhotari added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 19, 2024
mukesh-ctds pushed a commit to datastax/pulsar that referenced this pull request Apr 15, 2024
… reads (apache#22295)

(cherry picked from commit 2803ba2)

(cherry picked from commit fde7c49)
mukesh-ctds pushed a commit to datastax/pulsar that referenced this pull request Apr 17, 2024
… reads (apache#22295)

(cherry picked from commit 2803ba2)

(cherry picked from commit fde7c49)
mukesh-ctds pushed a commit to datastax/pulsar that referenced this pull request Apr 17, 2024
… reads (apache#22295)

(cherry picked from commit 2803ba2)

(cherry picked from commit fde7c49)
mukesh-ctds pushed a commit to datastax/pulsar that referenced this pull request Apr 19, 2024
… reads (apache#22295)

(cherry picked from commit 2803ba2)

(cherry picked from commit fde7c49)
srinath-ctds pushed a commit to datastax/pulsar that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2024
… reads (apache#22295)

(cherry picked from commit 2803ba2)

(cherry picked from commit fde7c49)
hanmz pushed a commit to hanmz/pulsar that referenced this pull request Feb 12, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants