As promised, here is a link to the current prototype: https://github.com/confluentinc/kafka/tree/kafka-raft.
Thanks, Jason On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:53 AM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi Deng, > > Thanks for the question. I mentioned this in the rejected alternatives > section. The current proposal is only for metadata, but I am definitely in > favor of using Raft for partition replication in the long term as well. > There are some interesting tradeoffs in terms of fault tolerance, latency, > and batching compared with the current replication protocol. I consider > this a good candidate for the next big architectural change once KIP-500 > nears completion. > > -Jason > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 7:16 PM deng ziming <dengziming1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Big +1 for your initiative and I have a question, we implement the >> Raft protocol >> just to be used in the management of metadata in Zookeeper or we will also >> use it to replace the current logical of managing log-replica since the >> algorithm we used to manage log-replica is analogous to Raft. >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 7:45 AM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi All, >> > >> > I'd like to start a discussion on KIP-595: >> > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-595%3A+A+Raft+Protocol+for+the+Metadata+Quorum >> > . >> > This proposal specifies a Raft protocol to ultimately replace Zookeeper >> as >> > documented in KIP-500. Please take a look and share your thoughts. >> > >> > A few minor notes to set the stage a little bit: >> > >> > - This KIP does not specify the structure of the messages used to >> represent >> > metadata in Kafka, nor does it specify the internal API that will be >> used >> > by the controller. Expect these to come in later proposals. Here we are >> > primarily concerned with the replication protocol and basic operational >> > mechanics. >> > - We expect many details to change as we get closer to integration with >> > the controller. Any changes we make will be made either as amendments to >> > this KIP or, in the case of larger changes, as new proposals. >> > - We have a prototype implementation which I will put online within the >> > next week which may help in understanding some details. It has diverged >> a >> > little bit from our proposal, so I am taking a little time to bring it >> in >> > line. I'll post an update to this thread when it is available for >> review. >> > >> > Finally, I want to mention that this proposal was drafted by myself, >> Boyang >> > Chen, and Guozhang Wang. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Jason >> > >> >
