Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[BAHIR-295] Added backpressure & ratelimit support - #101
Conversation
eskabetxe
commented
Jan 12, 2022
@iammehrabalam thanks for your contribution |
lresende
commented
Jan 23, 2022
@iammehrabalam What is the backward compatibility story for this change? Also, should the sample be using the new capabilities to demonstrate the new functionality? |
iammehrabalam
commented
Jan 24, 2022
The behaviour will be exactly same what was earlier if below spark streaming config is not set.
So it means backward compatible. Added a test case which demonstrate rate and batch size. |
iammehrabalam
commented
Feb 28, 2022
@lresende@eskabetxe reminder |
The backpressure implementation isn't working as expected. My understanding is that the backpressure mechanism will control the input rate but never exceed the Context - I created a Spark Scala app with 900 receivers, |
datasherlock
commented
Feb 6, 2023
Based on https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/streaming-custom-receivers.html#receiver-reliability, the rate control mechanism will have to be implemented by the receiver (if reliable). I do not see any logic that caps the input rates to the |
Just stumbled upon this PR. For anyone interested, my guess is that the correct implementation should use Spark Streaming's BlockGenerator class. It would give the whole process |
@LeonardMeyer you are right but the rate limit will only be applied when single data is written into the store (https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/595ad30e6259f7e4e4252dfee7704b73fd4760f7/streaming/src/main/scala/org/apache/spark/streaming/receiver/Receiver.scala#L118). In case of writing iterator (i.e block) directly rate limit will not be applied by default. In Pubsub Receiver, the iterator store method is called where we added rate limit (i.e the same rate limit is generated based on backpressure ) |
iammehrabalam
commented
Jun 4, 2023
@datasherlock Ideally it should work. If possible share spark configuration so I can help. |
irajhedayati
commented
Sep 19, 2023
This change was suggested two years ago. Is there any plan to push it through? |
No description provided.