+1 non-binding. Thanks! On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:05 PM Sönke Liebau <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi Mickael, > > thanks for your response! That all makes perfect sense and I cannot > give any actual use cases for where what I asked about would be useful > :) > It was more the idle thought if this might be low hanging fruit while > changing this anyway to avoid having to circle back later on and > wanted to at least mention it. > > I am totally happy either way! > > Best regards, > Sönke > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 11:20, Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Thanks Sönke for the feedback. > > > > I debated this point quite a bit before deciding to base creation > > around "min.insync.replicas". > > > > For me, the goal of this KIP is to enable administrators to provide > > higher availability. In a 3 node cluster configured for high > > availability (3 replicas, 2 min ISR), by enabling this feature, > > clusters should be fully usable even when 1 broker is down. This > > should cover all "normal" maintenance operations like a rolling > > restart or just the recovery of a broker. > > > > At the moment, when creating a topic/partition, the assumption is that > > the resource will be fully functioning. This KIP does not change this > > assumption. If this is something someone wants, I think it should be > > handled in a different KIP that targets that use case. By relying on > > "min.insync.replicas", we don't break any assumptions the user has and > > this should be fully transparent from the user point of view. > > > > About "min.insync.replicas", one caveat that is not explicit in the > > KIP is that it's currently possible to create topics with less > > replicas than this settings. For that reason, I think the > > implementation will actually rely on min(replicas, min-isr) instead of > > simply min.insync.replicas. I have updated the KIP to explicitly > > mention this point. > > > > I hope that answers your question, let me know. > > Thanks > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Sönke Liebau > > <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > that sounds like a useful addition! I can't help but wonder whether by > > > leaving in the restriction that "min.insync.replicas" has to be > > > satisfied we'll be back here in a years time because someone has a > > > scenario where he or she wants to go below that :) > > > I don't have a strong opinion either way to be honest, just a random > > > thought when reading the KIP. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Sönke > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 22:44, Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 non-binding, thx > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 6:09 AM Mickael Maison < > mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Bumping this thread, I've not seen any votes or feedback. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:17 PM Mickael Maison > > > > > <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start a vote on KIP-409: Allow creating > under-replicated > > > > > > topics and partitions > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-409%3A+Allow+creating+under-replicated+topics+and+partitions > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sönke Liebau > > > Partner > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878 > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 Wedel - Germany > > > > -- > Sönke Liebau > Partner > Tel. +49 179 7940878 > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 Wedel - Germany > >
