<p>I have a topic with 100 partitions. Initially, with over 1 billion messages, I had scaled 100 VMs to consume from each partition in parallel. Now the distributions seems to no longer be uniform as the number of messages is now down to just a few million. My question is.. does it now make sense to reduce the number of consuming VMs within my consumer group as the lag drops or to always keep at 100? My reasoning is, I'm wondering if a lot of rebalancing will start to occur and therefore lower my overall throughput of output messages to my sink.</p>

<p>Let's ignore financial cost within this decision. </p>

Ryan
<p>As long as you don't use keyed messages in your producer, the messages should balance across your partition evenly; this applies for billions of messages, and also for millions or less.  </p>

<p>If you use dynamic partition assignment for your consumers (which is the default) changing the number of consumers will cause rebalances and extra complication to your project structure.<br>
As long as you take the cost out of the discussion- stay with fixed number of consumers/VMs and make sure it is a multiplication of the number of partitions, i.e 200/300/400 partitions is also alright for your case because consumers can subscribe to multiple partitions.  </p>

<p>Remember that even for smaller number of messages, you don't lose anything by having more consumers as long as you have enough partitions to balance the work, only unused computation power (for financial considerations).</p>
