Hi Jun,
Thanks for your comments. Please find the inline replies below.
605.2 "Build the local leader epoch cache by cutting the leader epoch
sequence received from remote storage to [LSO, ELO]." I mentioned an issue
earlier. Suppose the leader's local start offset is 100. The follower finds
a remote segment covering offset range [80, 120). The producerState with
this remote segment is up to offset 120. To trim the producerState to
offset 100 requires more work since one needs to download the previous
producerState up to offset 80 and then replay the messages from 80 to 100.
It seems that it's simpler in this case for the follower just to take the
remote segment as it is and start fetching from offset 120.
We chose that approach to avoid any edge cases here. It may be
possible that the remote log segment that is received may not have the
same leader epoch sequence from 100-120 as it contains on the
leader(this can happen due to unclean leader). It is safe to start
from what the leader returns here.Another way is to find the remote
log segment
5016. Just to echo what Kowshik was saying. It seems that
RLMM.onPartitionLeadershipChanges() is only called on the replicas for a
partition, not on the replicas for the __remote_log_segment_metadata
partition. It's not clear how the leader of __remote_log_segment_metadata
obtains the metadata for remote segments for deletion.
RLMM will always receive the callback for the remote log metadata
topic partitions hosted on the local broker and these will be
subscribed. I will make this clear in the KIP.
5100. KIP-516 has been accepted and is being implemented now. Could you
update the KIP based on topicID?
We mentioned KIP-516 and how it helps. We will update this KIP with
all the changes it brings with KIP-516.
5101. RLMM: It would be useful to clarify how the following two APIs are
used. According to the wiki, the former is used for topic deletion and the
latter is used for retention. It seems that retention should use the former
since remote segments without a matching epoch in the leader (potentially
due to unclean leader election) also need to be garbage collected. The
latter seems to be used for the new leader to determine the last tiered
segment.
default Iterator<RemoteLogSegmentMetadata>
listRemoteLogSegments(TopicPartition topicPartition)
Iterator<RemoteLogSegmentMetadata> listRemoteLogSegments(TopicPartition
topicPartition, long leaderEpoch);
Right,.that is what we are currently doing. We will update the
javadocs and wiki with that. Earlier, we did not want to remove the
segments which are not matched with leader epochs from the ladder
partition as they may be used later by a replica which can become a
leader (unclean leader election) and refer those segments. But that
may leak these segments in remote storage until the topic lifetime. We
decided to cleanup the segments with the oldest incase of size based
retention also.
5102. RSM:
5102.1 For methods like fetchLogSegmentData(), it seems that they can
use RemoteLogSegmentId instead of RemoteLogSegmentMetadata.
It will be useful to have metadata for RSM to fetch log segment. It
may create location/path using id with other metadata too.
5102.2 In fetchLogSegmentData(), should we use long instead of Long?
Wanted to keep endPosition as optional to read till the end of the
segment and avoid sentinels.
5102.3 Why only some of the methods have default implementation and others
Don't?
Actually, RSM will not have any default implementations. Those 3
methods were made default earlier for tests etc. Updated the wiki.
5102.4. Could we define RemoteLogSegmentMetadataUpdate
and DeletePartitionUpdate?
Sure, they will be added.
5102.5 LogSegmentData: It seems that it's easier to pass
in leaderEpochIndex as a ByteBuffer or byte array than a file since it will
be generated in memory.
Right, this is in plan.
5102.6 RemoteLogSegmentMetadata: It seems that it needs both baseOffset and
startOffset. For example, deleteRecords() could move the startOffset to the
middle of a segment. If we copy the full segment to remote storage, the
baseOffset and the startOffset will be different.
Good point. startOffset is baseOffset by default, if not set explicitly.
5102.7 Could we define all the public methods for RemoteLogSegmentMetadata
and LogSegmentData?
Sure, updated the wiki.
5102.8 Could we document whether endOffset in RemoteLogSegmentMetadata is
inclusive/exclusive?
It is inclusive, will update.
5103. configs:
5103.1 Could we define the default value of non-required configs (e.g the
size of new thread pools)?
Sure, that makes sense.
5103.2 It seems that local.log.retention.ms should default to retention.ms,
instead of remote.log.retention.minutes. Similarly, it seems
that local.log.retention.bytes should default to segment.bytes.
Right, we do not have remote.log.retention as we discussed earlier.
Thanks for catching the typo.
5103.3 remote.log.manager.thread.pool.size: The description says "used in
scheduling tasks to copy segments, fetch remote log indexes and clean up
remote log segments". However, there is a separate
config remote.log.reader.threads for fetching remote data. It's weird to
fetch remote index and log in different thread pools since both are used
for serving fetch requests.
Right, remote.log.manager.thread.pool is mainly used for copy/cleanup
activities. Fetch path always goes through remote.log.reader.threads.
5103.4 remote.log.manager.task.interval.ms: Is that the amount of time to
back off when there is no work to do? If so, perhaps it can be renamed as
backoff.ms.
This is the delay interval for each iteration. It may be renamed to
remote.log.manager.task.delay.ms
5103.5 Are rlm_process_interval_ms and rlm_retry_interval_ms configs? If
so, they need to be listed in this section.
remote.log.manager.task.interval.ms is the process internal, retry
interval is missing in the configs, which will be updated in the KIP.
5104. "RLM maintains a bounded cache(possibly LRU) of the index files of
remote log segments to avoid multiple index fetches from the remote
storage." Is the RLM in memory or on disk? If on disk, where is it stored?
Do we need a configuration to bound the size?
It is stored on disk. They are stored in a directory
`remote-log-index-cache` under log dir. We plan to have a config for
that instead of default. We will have a configuration for that.
5105. The KIP uses local-log-start-offset and Earliest Local Offset in
different places. It would be useful to standardize the terminology.
Sure.
5106. The section on "In BuildingRemoteLogAux state". It listed two options
without saying which option is chosen.
We already mentioned in the KIP that we chose option-2.
5107. Follower to leader transition: It has step 2, but not step 1.
Step-1 is there but it is not explicitly highlighted. It is previous
table to step-2.
5108. If a consumer fetches from the remote data and the remote storage is
not available, what error code is used in the fetch response?
Good point. We have not yet defined the error for this case. We need
to define an error message and send the same in fetch response.
5109. "ListOffsets: For timestamps >= 0, it returns the first message
offset whose timestamp is >= to the given timestamp in the request. That
means it checks in remote log time indexes first, after which local log
time indexes are checked." Could you document which method in RLMM is used
for this?
Okay.
5110. Stopreplica: "it sets all the remote log segment metadata of that
partition with a delete marker and publishes them to RLMM." This seems
outdated given the new topic deletion logic.
Will update with KIP-516 related points.
5111. "RLM follower fetches the earliest offset for the earliest leader
epoch by calling RLMM.earliestLogOffset(TopicPartition topicPartition, int
leaderEpoch) and updates that as the log start offset." Do we need that
since replication propagates logStartOffset already?
Good point. Right, existing replication protocol takes care of
updating the followers’s log start offset received from the leader.
5112. Is the default maxWaitMs of 500ms enough for fetching from remote
storage?
Remote reads may fail within the current default wait time, but
subsequent fetches would be able to serve as that data is stored in
the local cache. This cache is currently implemented in RSMs. But we
plan to pull this into the remote log messaging layer in future.
5113. "Committed offsets can be stored in a local file to avoid reading the
messages again when a broker is restarted." Could you describe the format
and the location of the file? Also, could the same message be processed by
RLMM again after broker restart? If so, how do we handle that?
Sure, we will update in the KIP.
5114. Message format
5114.1 There are two records named RemoteLogSegmentMetadataRecord with
apiKey 0 and 1.
Nice catch, that was a typo. Fixed in the wiki.
5114.2 RemoteLogSegmentMetadataRecord: Could we document whether endOffset
is inclusive/exclusive?
It is inclusive, will update.
5114.3 RemoteLogSegmentMetadataRecord: Could you explain LeaderEpoch a bit
more? Is that the epoch of the leader when it copies the segment to remote
storage? Also, how will this field be used?
Right, this is the leader epoch of the broker which copied this
segment. This is helpful in reason about which broker copied the
segment to remote storage.
5114.4 EventTimestamp: Could you explain this a bit more? Each record in
Kafka already has a timestamp field. Could we just use that?
This is the timestamp at which the respective event occurred. Added
this to RemoteLogSegmentMetadata as RLMM can be any other
implementation. We thought about that but it looked cleaner to use at
the message structure level instead of getting that from the consumer
record and using that to build the respective event.
5114.5 SegmentSizeInBytes: Could this just be int32?
Right, it looks like config allows only int value >= 14.
5115. RemoteLogCleaner(RLC): This could be confused with the log cleaner
for compaction. Perhaps it can be renamed to sth like
RemotePartitionRemover.
I am fine with RemotePartitionRemover or RemoteLogDeletionManager(we
have other manager classes like RLM, RLMM).
5116. "RLC receives the delete_partition_marked and processes it if it is
not yet processed earlier." How does it know whether
delete_partition_marked has been processed earlier?
This is to handle duplicate delete_partition_marked events. RLC
internally maintains a state for the delete_partition events and if it
already has an existing event then it ignores if it is already being
processed.
5117. Should we add a new MessageFormatter to read the tier metadata topic?
Right, this is in plan but did not mention it in the KIP. This will be
useful for debugging purposes too.
5118. "Maximum remote log reader thread pool task queue size. If the task
queue is full, broker will stop reading remote log segments." What do we
return to the fetch request in this case?
We return an error response for that partition.
5119. It would be useful to list all things not supported in the first
version in a Future work or Limitations section. For example, compacted
topic, JBOD, changing remote.log.storage.enable from true to false, etc.
We already have a non-goals section which is filled with some of these
details. Do we need another limitations section?
Thanks,
Satish.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 11:27 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> Hi, Satish,
>
> Thanks for the updated KIP. A few more comments below.
>
> 605.2 "Build the local leader epoch cache by cutting the leader epoch
> sequence received from remote storage to [LSO, ELO]." I mentioned an issue
> earlier. Suppose the leader's local start offset is 100. The follower finds
> a remote segment covering offset range [80, 120). The producerState with
> this remote segment is up to offset 120. To trim the producerState to
> offset 100 requires more work since one needs to download the previous
> producerState up to offset 80 and then replay the messages from 80 to 100.
> It seems that it's simpler in this case for the follower just to take the
> remote segment as it is and start fetching from offset 120.
>
> 5016. Just to echo what Kowshik was saying. It seems that
> RLMM.onPartitionLeadershipChanges() is only called on the replicas for a
> partition, not on the replicas for the __remote_log_segment_metadata
> partition. It's not clear how the leader of __remote_log_segment_metadata
> obtains the metadata for remote segments for deletion.
>
> 5100. KIP-516 has been accepted and is being implemented now. Could you
> update the KIP based on topicID?
>
> 5101. RLMM: It would be useful to clarify how the following two APIs are
> used. According to the wiki, the former is used for topic deletion and the
> latter is used for retention. It seems that retention should use the former
> since remote segments without a matching epoch in the leader (potentially
> due to unclean leader election) also need to be garbage collected. The
> latter seems to be used for the new leader to determine the last tiered
> segment.
> default Iterator<RemoteLogSegmentMetadata>
> listRemoteLogSegments(TopicPartition topicPartition)
> Iterator<RemoteLogSegmentMetadata> listRemoteLogSegments(TopicPartition
> topicPartition, long leaderEpoch);
>
> 5102. RSM:
> 5102.1 For methods like fetchLogSegmentData(), it seems that they can
> use RemoteLogSegmentId instead of RemoteLogSegmentMetadata.
> 5102.2 In fetchLogSegmentData(), should we use long instead of Long?
> 5102.3 Why only some of the methods have default implementation and others
> don't?
> 5102.4. Could we define RemoteLogSegmentMetadataUpdate
> and DeletePartitionUpdate?
> 5102.5 LogSegmentData: It seems that it's easier to pass
> in leaderEpochIndex as a ByteBuffer or byte array than a file since it will
> be generated in memory.
> 5102.6 RemoteLogSegmentMetadata: It seems that it needs both baseOffset and
> startOffset. For example, deleteRecords() could move the startOffset to the
> middle of a segment. If we copy the full segment to remote storage, the
> baseOffset and the startOffset will be different.
> 5102.7 Could we define all the public methods for RemoteLogSegmentMetadata
> and LogSegmentData?
> 5102.8 Could we document whether endOffset in RemoteLogSegmentMetadata is
> inclusive/exclusive?
>
> 5103. configs:
> 5103.1 Could we define the default value of non-required configs (e.g the
> size of new thread pools)?
> 5103.2 It seems that local.log.retention.ms should default to retention.ms,
> instead of remote.log.retention.minutes. Similarly, it seems
> that local.log.retention.bytes should default to segment.bytes.
> 5103.3 remote.log.manager.thread.pool.size: The description says "used in
> scheduling tasks to copy segments, fetch remote log indexes and clean up
> remote log segments". However, there is a separate
> config remote.log.reader.threads for fetching remote data. It's weird to
> fetch remote index and log in different thread pools since both are used
> for serving fetch requests.
> 5103.4 remote.log.manager.task.interval.ms: Is that the amount of time to
> back off when there is no work to do? If so, perhaps it can be renamed as
> backoff.ms.
> 5103.5 Are rlm_process_interval_ms and rlm_retry_interval_ms configs? If
> so, they need to be listed in this section.
>
> 5104. "RLM maintains a bounded cache(possibly LRU) of the index files of
> remote log segments to avoid multiple index fetches from the remote
> storage." Is the RLM in memory or on disk? If on disk, where is it stored?
> Do we need a configuration to bound the size?
>
> 5105. The KIP uses local-log-start-offset and Earliest Local Offset in
> different places. It would be useful to standardize the terminology.
>
> 5106. The section on "In BuildingRemoteLogAux state". It listed two options
> without saying which option is chosen.
>
> 5107. Follower to leader transition: It has step 2, but not step 1.
>
> 5108. If a consumer fetches from the remote data and the remote storage is
> not available, what error code is used in the fetch response?
>
> 5109. "ListOffsets: For timestamps >= 0, it returns the first message
> offset whose timestamp is >= to the given timestamp in the request. That
> means it checks in remote log time indexes first, after which local log
> time indexes are checked." Could you document which method in RLMM is used
> for this?
>
> 5110. Stopreplica: "it sets all the remote log segment metadata of that
> partition with a delete marker and publishes them to RLMM." This seems
> outdated given the new topic deletion logic.
>
> 5111. "RLM follower fetches the earliest offset for the earliest leader
> epoch by calling RLMM.earliestLogOffset(TopicPartition topicPartition, int
> leaderEpoch) and updates that as the log start offset." Do we need that
> since replication propagates logStartOffset already?
>
> 5112. Is the default maxWaitMs of 500ms enough for fetching from remote
> storage?
>
> 5113. "Committed offsets can be stored in a local file to avoid reading the
> messages again when a broker is restarted." Could you describe the format
> and the location of the file? Also, could the same message be processed by
> RLMM again after broker restart? If so, how do we handle that?
>
> 5114. Message format
> 5114.1 There are two records named RemoteLogSegmentMetadataRecord with
> apiKey 0 and 1.
> 5114.2 RemoteLogSegmentMetadataRecord: Could we document whether endOffset
> is inclusive/exclusive?
> 5114.3 RemoteLogSegmentMetadataRecord: Could you explain LeaderEpoch a bit
> more? Is that the epoch of the leader when it copies the segment to remote
> storage? Also, how will this field be used?
> 5114.4 EventTimestamp: Could you explain this a bit more? Each record in
> Kafka already has a timestamp field. Could we just use that?
> 5114.5 SegmentSizeInBytes: Could this just be int32?
>
> 5115. RemoteLogCleaner(RLC): This could be confused with the log cleaner
> for compaction. Perhaps it can be renamed to sth like
> RemotePartitionRemover.
>
> 5116. "RLC receives the delete_partition_marked and processes it if it is
> not yet processed earlier." How does it know whether
> delete_partition_marked has been processed earlier?
>
> 5117. Should we add a new MessageFormatter to read the tier metadata topic?
>
> 5118. "Maximum remote log reader thread pool task queue size. If the task
> queue is full, broker will stop reading remote log segments." What do we
> return to the fetch request in this case?
>
> 5119. It would be useful to list all things not supported in the first
> version in a Future work or Limitations section. For example, compacted
> topic, JBOD, changing remote.log.storage.enable from true to false, etc.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jun
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 5:57 PM Kowshik Prakasam <kpraka...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Satish,
> >
> > Thanks for the updates to the KIP. Here are my first batch of
> > comments/suggestions on the latest version of the KIP.
> >
> > 5012. In the RemoteStorageManager interface, there is an API defined for
> > each file type. For example, fetchOffsetIndex, fetchTimestampIndex etc. To
> > avoid the duplication, I'd suggest we can instead have a FileType enum and
> > a common get API based on the FileType.
> >
> > 5013. There are some references to the Google doc in the KIP. I wasn't sure
> > if the Google doc is expected to be in sync with the contents of the wiki.
> > Going forward, it seems easier if just the KIP is maintained as the source
> > of truth. In this regard, could you please move all the references to the
> > Google doc, maybe to a separate References section at the bottom of the
> > KIP?
> >
> > 5014. There are some TODO sections in the KIP. Would these be filled up in
> > future iterations?
> >
> > 5015. Under "Topic deletion lifecycle", I'm trying to understand why do we
> > need delete_partition_marked as well as the delete_partition_started
> > messages. I couldn't spot a drawback if supposing we simplified the design
> > such that the controller would only write delete_partition_started message,
> > and RemoteLogCleaner (RLC) instance picks it up for processing. What am I
> > missing?
> >
> > 5016. Under "Topic deletion lifecycle", step (4) is mentioned as "RLC gets
> > all the remote log segments for the partition and each of these remote log
> > segments is deleted with the next steps.". Since the RLC instance runs on
> > each tier topic partition leader, how does the RLC then get the list of
> > remote log segments to be deleted? It will be useful to add that detail to
> > the KIP.
> >
> > 5017. Under "Public Interfaces -> Configs", there is a line mentioning "We
> > will support flipping remote.log.storage.enable in next versions." It will
> > be useful to mention this in the "Future Work" section of the KIP too.
> >
> > 5018. The KIP introduces a number of configuration parameters. It will be
> > useful to mention in the KIP if the user should assume these as static
> > configuration in the server.properties file, or dynamic configuration which
> > can be modified without restarting the broker.
> >
> > 5019. Maybe this is planned as a future update to the KIP, but I thought
> > I'd mention it here. Could you please add details to the KIP on why RocksDB
> > was chosen as the default cache implementation of RLMM, and how it is going
> > to be used? Were alternatives compared/considered? For example, it would be
> > useful to explain/evaluate the following: 1) debuggability of the RocksDB
> > JNI interface, 2) performance, 3) portability across platforms and 4)
> > interface parity of RocksDB’s JNI api with it's underlying C/C++ api.
> >
> > 5020. Following up on (5019), for the RocksDB cache, it will be useful to
> > explain the relationship/mapping between the following in the KIP: 1) # of
> > tiered partitions, 2) # of partitions of metadata topic
> > __remote_log_metadata and 3) # of RocksDB instances. i.e. is the plan to
> > have a RocksDB instance per tiered partition, or per metadata topic
> > partition, or just 1 for per broker?
> >
> > 5021. I was looking at the implementation prototype (PR link:
> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/7561). It seems that a boolean
> > attribute is being introduced into the Log layer to check if remote log
> > capability is enabled. While the boolean footprint is small at the moment,
> > this can easily grow in the future and become harder to
> > test/maintain, considering that the Log layer is already pretty complex. We
> > should start thinking about how to manage such changes to the Log layer
> > (for the purpose of improved testability, better separation of concerns and
> > readability). One proposal I have is to take a step back and define a
> > higher level Log interface. Then, the Broker code can be changed to use
> > this interface. It can be changed such that only a handle to the interface
> > is exposed to other components (such as LogCleaner, ReplicaManager etc.)
> > and not the underlying Log object. This approach keeps the user of the Log
> > layer agnostic of the whereabouts of the data. Underneath the interface,
> > the implementing classes can completely separate local log capabilities
> > from the remote log. For example, the Log class can be simplified to only
> > manage logic surrounding local log segments and metadata. Additionally, a
> > wrapper class can be provided (implementing the higher level Log interface)
> > which will contain any/all logic surrounding tiered data. The wrapper
> > class will wrap around an instance of the Log class delegating the local
> > log logic to it. Finally, a handle to the wrapper class can be exposed to
> > the other components wherever they need a handle to the higher level Log
> > interface.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kowshik
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 9:52 PM Satish Duggana <satish.dugg...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > KIP is updated with 1) topic deletion lifecycle and its related items
> > > 2) Protocol changes(mainly related to ListOffsets) and other minor
> > > changes.
> > > Please go through them and let us know your comments.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Satish.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 9:10 PM Satish Duggana <satish.dugg...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Dhruvil,
> > > > Thanks for looking into the KIP and sending your comments. Sorry for
> > > > the late reply, missed it in the mail thread.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Could you describe how retention would work with this KIP and which
> > > > threads are responsible for driving this work? I believe there are 3
> > > kinds
> > > > of retention processes we are looking at:
> > > > (a) Regular retention for data in tiered storage as per configured `
> > > > retention.ms` / `retention.bytes`.
> > > > (b) Local retention for data in local storage as per configured `
> > > > local.log.retention.ms` / `local.log.retention.bytes`
> > > > (c) Possibly regular retention for data in local storage, if the
> > > tiering
> > > > task is lagging or for data that is below the log start offset.
> > > >
> > > > Local log retention is done by the existing log cleanup tasks. These
> > > > are not done for segments that are not yet copied to remote storage.
> > > > Remote log cleanup is done by the leader partition’s RLMTask.
> > > >
> > > > 2. When does a segment become eligible to be tiered? Is it as soon as
> > the
> > > > segment is rolled and the end offset is less than the last stable
> > offset
> > > as
> > > > mentioned in the KIP? I wonder if we need to consider other parameters
> > > too,
> > > > like the highwatermark so that we are guaranteed that what we are
> > tiering
> > > > has been committed to the log and accepted by the ISR.
> > > >
> > > > AFAIK, last stable offset is always <= highwatermark. This will make
> > > > sure we are always tiering the message segments which have been
> > > > accepted by ISR and transactionally completed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. The section on "Follower Fetch Scenarios" is useful but is a bit
> > > > difficult to parse at the moment. It would be useful to summarize the
> > > > changes we need in the ReplicaFetcher.
> > > >
> > > > It may become difficult for users to read/follow if we add code changes
> > > here.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Related to the above, it's a bit unclear how we are planning on
> > > > restoring the producer state for a new replica. Could you expand on
> > that?
> > > >
> > > > It is mentioned in the KIP BuildingRemoteLogAuxState is introduced to
> > > > build the state like leader epoch sequence and producer snapshots
> > > > before it starts fetching the data from the leader. We will make it
> > > > clear in the KIP.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 5. Similarly, it would be worth summarizing the behavior on unclean
> > > leader
> > > > election. There are several scenarios to consider here: data loss from
> > > > local log, data loss from remote log, data loss from metadata topic,
> > etc.
> > > > It's worth describing these in detail.
> > > >
> > > > We mentioned the cases about unclean leader election in the follower
> > > > fetch scenarios.
> > > > If there are errors while fetching data from remote store or metadata
> > > > store, it will work the same way as it works with local log. It
> > > > returns the error back to the caller. Please let us know if I am
> > > > missing your point here.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 7. For a READ_COMMITTED FetchRequest, how do we retrieve and return the
> > > > aborted transaction metadata?
> > > >
> > > > When a fetch for a remote log is accessed, we will fetch aborted
> > > > transactions along with the segment if it is not found in the local
> > > > index cache. This includes the case of transaction index not existing
> > > > in the remote log segment. That means, the cache entry can be empty or
> > > > have a list of aborted transactions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 8. The `LogSegmentData` class assumes that we have a log segment,
> > offset
> > > > index, time index, transaction index, producer snapshot and leader
> > epoch
> > > > index. How do we deal with cases where we do not have one or more of
> > > these?
> > > > For example, we may not have a transaction index or producer snapshot
> > > for a
> > > > particular segment. The former is optional, and the latter is only kept
> > > for
> > > > up to the 3 latest segments.
> > > >
> > > > This is a good point, we discussed this in the last meeting.
> > > > Transaction index is optional and we will copy them only if it exists.
> > > > We want to keep all the producer snapshots at each log segment rolling
> > > > and they can be removed if the log copying is successful and it still
> > > > maintains the existing latest 3 segments, We only delete the producer
> > > > snapshots which have been copied to remote log segments on leader.
> > > > Follower will keep the log segments beyond the segments which have not
> > > > been copied to remote storage. We will update the KIP with these
> > > > details.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Satish.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 1:47 AM Dhruvil Shah <dhru...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Satish, Harsha,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the KIP. Few questions below:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Could you describe how retention would work with this KIP and
> > which
> > > > > threads are responsible for driving this work? I believe there are 3
> > > kinds
> > > > > of retention processes we are looking at:
> > > > > (a) Regular retention for data in tiered storage as per configured
> > `
> > > > > retention.ms` / `retention.bytes`.
> > > > > (b) Local retention for data in local storage as per configured `
> > > > > local.log.retention.ms` / `local.log.retention.bytes`
> > > > > (c) Possibly regular retention for data in local storage, if the
> > > tiering
> > > > > task is lagging or for data that is below the log start offset.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. When does a segment become eligible to be tiered? Is it as soon as
> > > the
> > > > > segment is rolled and the end offset is less than the last stable
> > > offset as
> > > > > mentioned in the KIP? I wonder if we need to consider other
> > parameters
> > > too,
> > > > > like the highwatermark so that we are guaranteed that what we are
> > > tiering
> > > > > has been committed to the log and accepted by the ISR.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. The section on "Follower Fetch Scenarios" is useful but is a bit
> > > > > difficult to parse at the moment. It would be useful to summarize the
> > > > > changes we need in the ReplicaFetcher.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Related to the above, it's a bit unclear how we are planning on
> > > > > restoring the producer state for a new replica. Could you expand on
> > > that?
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Similarly, it would be worth summarizing the behavior on unclean
> > > leader
> > > > > election. There are several scenarios to consider here: data loss
> > from
> > > > > local log, data loss from remote log, data loss from metadata topic,
> > > etc.
> > > > > It's worth describing these in detail.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6. It would be useful to add details about how we plan on using
> > > RocksDB in
> > > > > the default implementation of `RemoteLogMetadataManager`.
> > > > >
> > > > > 7. For a READ_COMMITTED FetchRequest, how do we retrieve and return
> > the
> > > > > aborted transaction metadata?
> > > > >
> > > > > 8. The `LogSegmentData` class assumes that we have a log segment,
> > > offset
> > > > > index, time index, transaction index, producer snapshot and leader
> > > epoch
> > > > > index. How do we deal with cases where we do not have one or more of
> > > these?
> > > > > For example, we may not have a transaction index or producer snapshot
> > > for a
> > > > > particular segment. The former is optional, and the latter is only
> > > kept for
> > > > > up to the 3 latest segments.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Dhruvil
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:54 PM Harsha Ch <harsha...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We are all working through the last meeting feedback. I'll cancel
> > the
> > > > > > tomorrow 's meeting and we can meanwhile continue our discussion in
> > > mailing
> > > > > > list. We can start the regular meeting from next week onwards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Harsha
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 8:41 AM, Satish Duggana <
> > > satish.dugg...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Jun,
> > > > > > > Thanks for your thorough review and comments. Please find the
> > > inline
> > > > > > > replies below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 600. The topic deletion logic needs more details.
> > > > > > > 600.1 The KIP mentions "The controller considers the topic
> > > partition is
> > > > > > > deleted only when it determines that there are no log segments
> > for
> > > that
> > > > > > > topic partition by using RLMM". How is this done?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It uses RLMM#listSegments() returns all the segments for the
> > given
> > > topic
> > > > > > > partition.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 600.2 "If the delete option is enabled then the leader will stop
> > > RLM task
> > > > > > > and stop processing and it sets all the remote log segment
> > > metadata of
> > > > > > > that partition with a delete marker and publishes them to RLMM."
> > We
> > > > > > > discussed this earlier. When a topic is being deleted, there may
> > > not be a
> > > > > > > leader for the deleted partition.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a good point. As suggested in the meeting, we will add a
> > > separate
> > > > > > > section for topic/partition deletion lifecycle and this scenario
> > > will be
> > > > > > > addressed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 601. Unclean leader election
> > > > > > > 601.1 Scenario 1: new empty follower
> > > > > > > After step 1, the follower restores up to offset 3. So why does
> > it
> > > have
> > > > > > > LE-2 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LE-2> at offset 5?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nice catch. It was showing the leader epoch fetched from the
> > remote
> > > > > > > storage. It should be shown with the truncated till offset 3.
> > > Updated the
> > > > > > > KIP.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 601.2 senario 5: After Step 3, leader A has inconsistent data
> > > between its
> > > > > > > local and the tiered data. For example. offset 3 has msg 3 LE-0
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LE-0> locally,
> > > > > > > but msg 5 LE-1 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LE-1> in
> > > the remote store. While it's ok for the unclean leader
> > > > > > > to lose data, it should still return consistent data, whether
> > it's
> > > from
> > > > > > > the local or the remote store.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no inconsistency here as LE-0
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LE-0> offsets are [0, 4] and LE-2
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LE-2>:
> > > > > > > [5, ]. It will always get the right records for the given offset
> > > and
> > > > > > > leader epoch. In case of remote, RSM is invoked to get the remote
> > > log
> > > > > > > segment that contains the given offset with the leader epoch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 601.4 It seems that retention is based on
> > > > > > > listRemoteLogSegments(TopicPartition topicPartition, long
> > > leaderEpoch).
> > > > > > > When there is an unclean leader election, it's possible for the
> > new
> > > > > > leader
> > > > > > > to not to include certain epochs in its epoch cache. How are
> > remote
> > > > > > > segments associated with those epochs being cleaned?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is a good point. This leader will also cleanup the epochs
> > > earlier to
> > > > > > > its start leader epoch and delete those segments. It gets the
> > > earliest
> > > > > > > epoch for a partition and starts deleting segments from that
> > leader
> > > > > > epoch.
> > > > > > > We need one more API in RLMM to get the earliest leader epoch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 601.5 The KIP discusses the handling of unclean leader elections
> > > for user
> > > > > > > topics. What about unclean leader elections on
> > > > > > > __remote_log_segment_metadata?
> > > > > > > This is the same as other system topics like consumer_offsets,
> > > > > > > __transaction_state topics. As discussed in the meeting, we will
> > > add the
> > > > > > > behavior of __remote_log_segment_metadata topic’s unclean leader
> > > > > > > truncation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 602. It would be useful to clarify the limitations in the initial
> > > > > > release.
> > > > > > > The KIP mentions not supporting compacted topics. What about JBOD
> > > and
> > > > > > > changing the configuration of a topic from delete to compact
> > after
> > > > > > remote.
> > > > > > > log. storage. enable ( http://remote.log.storage.enable/ ) is
> > > enabled?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This was updated in the KIP earlier.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 603. RLM leader tasks:
> > > > > > > 603.1"It checks for rolled over LogSegments (which have the last
> > > message
> > > > > > > offset less than last stable offset of that topic partition) and
> > > copies
> > > > > > > them along with their offset/time/transaction indexes and leader
> > > epoch
> > > > > > > cache to the remote tier." It needs to copy the producer snapshot
> > > too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Right. It copies producer snapshots too as mentioned in
> > > LogSegmentData.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 603.2 "Local logs are not cleaned up till those segments are
> > copied
> > > > > > > successfully to remote even though their retention time/size is
> > > reached"
> > > > > > > This seems weird. If the tiering stops because the remote store
> > is
> > > not
> > > > > > > available, we don't want the local data to grow forever.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was clarified in the discussion that the comment was more
> > about
> > > the
> > > > > > > local storage goes beyond the log.retention. The above statement
> > > is about
> > > > > > > local.log.retention but not for the complete log.retention. When
> > it
> > > > > > > reaches the log.retention then it will delete the local logs even
> > > though
> > > > > > > those are not copied to remote storage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 604. "RLM maintains a bounded cache(possibly LRU) of the index
> > > files of
> > > > > > > remote log segments to avoid multiple index fetches from the
> > remote
> > > > > > > storage. These indexes can be used in the same way as local
> > segment
> > > > > > > indexes are used." Could you provide more details on this? Are
> > the
> > > > > > indexes
> > > > > > > cached in memory or on disk? If on disk, where are they stored?
> > > Are the
> > > > > > > cached indexes bound by a certain size?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These are cached on disk and stored in log.dir with a name
> > > > > > > “__remote_log_index_cache”. They are bound by the total size.
> > This
> > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > exposed as a user configuration,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 605. BuildingRemoteLogAux
> > > > > > > 605.1 In this section, two options are listed. Which one is
> > chosen?
> > > > > > > Option-2, updated the KIP.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 605.2 In option 2, it says "Build the local leader epoch cache by
> > > cutting
> > > > > > > the leader epoch sequence received from remote storage to [LSO,
> > > ELO].
> > > > > > (LSO
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > = log start offset)." We need to do the same thing for the
> > producer
> > > > > > > snapshot. However, it's hard to cut the producer snapshot to an
> > > earlier
> > > > > > > offset. Another option is to simply take the lastOffset from the
> > > remote
> > > > > > > segment and use that as the starting fetch offset in the
> > follower.
> > > This
> > > > > > > avoids the need for cutting.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Right, this was mentioned in the “transactional support” section
> > > about
> > > > > > > adding these details.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 606. ListOffsets: Since we need a version bump, could you
> > document
> > > it
> > > > > > > under a protocol change section?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sure, we will update the KIP.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 607. "LogStartOffset of a topic can point to either of local
> > > segment or
> > > > > > > remote segment but it is initialised and maintained in the Log
> > > class like
> > > > > > > now. This is already maintained in `Log` class while loading the
> > > logs and
> > > > > > > it can also be fetched from RemoteLogMetadataManager." What will
> > > happen
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > the existing logic (e.g. log recovery) that currently depends on
> > > > > > > logStartOffset but assumes it's local?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They use a field called localLogStartOffset which is the local
> > log
> > > start
> > > > > > > offset..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 608. Handle expired remote segment: How does it pick up new
> > > > > > logStartOffset
> > > > > > > from deleteRecords?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good point. This was not addressed in the KIP. Will update the
> > KIP
> > > on how
> > > > > > > the RLM task handles this scenario.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 609. RLMM message format:
> > > > > > > 609.1 It includes both MaxTimestamp and EventTimestamp. Where
> > does
> > > it get
> > > > > > > both since the message in the log only contains one timestamp?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > `EventTimeStamp` is the timestamp at which that segment metadata
> > > event is
> > > > > > > generated. This is more for audits.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 609.2 If we change just the state (e.g. to DELETE_STARTED), it
> > > seems it's
> > > > > > > wasteful to have to include all other fields not changed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a good point. We thought about incremental updates. But
> > we
> > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > make sure all the events are in the expected order and take
> > action
> > > based
> > > > > > > on the latest event. Will think through the approaches in detail
> > > and
> > > > > > > update here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 609.3 Could you document which process makes the following
> > > transitions
> > > > > > > DELETE_MARKED, DELETE_STARTED, DELETE_FINISHED?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay, will document more details.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 610. remote.log.reader.max.pending.tasks: "Maximum remote log
> > > reader
> > > > > > > thread pool task queue size. If the task queue is full, broker
> > > will stop
> > > > > > > reading remote log segments." What does the broker do if the
> > queue
> > > is
> > > > > > > full?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It returns an error for this topic partition.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 611. What do we return if the request offset/epoch doesn't exist
> > > in the
> > > > > > > following API?
> > > > > > > RemoteLogSegmentMetadata remoteLogSegmentMetadata(TopicPartition
> > > > > > > topicPartition, long offset, int epochForOffset)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This returns null. But we prefer to update the return type as
> > > Optional
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > return Empty if that does not exist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Satish.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 9:45 AM Jun Rao < jun@ confluent. io (
> > > > > > > j...@confluent.io ) > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Hi, Satish,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks for the updated KIP. Made another pass. A few more
> > comments
> > > > > > below.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 600. The topic deletion logic needs more details.
> > > > > > >> 600.1 The KIP mentions "The controller considers the topic
> > > partition is
> > > > > > >> deleted only when it determines that there are no log segments
> > > for that
> > > > > > >> topic partition by using RLMM". How is this done? 600.2 "If the
> > > delete
> > > > > > >> option is enabled then the leader will stop RLM task and stop
> > > processing
> > > > > > >> and it sets all the remote log segment metadata of that
> > partition
> > > with a
> > > > > > >> delete marker and publishes them to RLMM." We discussed this
> > > earlier.
> > > > > > When
> > > > > > >> a topic is being deleted, there may not be a leader for the
> > > deleted
> > > > > > >> partition.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 601. Unclean leader election
> > > > > > >> 601.1 Scenario 1: new empty follower
> > > > > > >> After step 1, the follower restores up to offset 3. So why does
> > > it have
> > > > > > >> LE-2 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LE-2> at offset 5?
> > > > > > >> 601.2 senario 5: After Step 3, leader A has inconsistent data
> > > between
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > >> local and the tiered data. For example. offset 3 has msg 3 LE-0
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LE-0> locally,
> > > > > > >> but msg 5 LE-1 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LE-1> in
> > > the remote store. While it's ok for the unclean leader
> > > > > > >> to lose data, it should still return consistent data, whether
> > > it's from
> > > > > > >> the local or the remote store.
> > > > > > >> 601.3 The follower picks up log start offset using the following
> > > api.
> > > > > > >> Suppose that we have 3 remote segments (LE, SegmentStartOffset)
> > > as (2,
> > > > > > >> 10),
> > > > > > >> (3, 20) and (7, 15) due to an unclean leader election. Using the
> > > > > > following
> > > > > > >> api will cause logStartOffset to go backward from 20 to 15. How
> > > do we
> > > > > > >> prevent that?
> > > > > > >> earliestLogOffset(TopicPartition topicPartition, int
> > leaderEpoch)
> > > 601.4
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > >> seems that retention is based on
> > > > > > >> listRemoteLogSegments(TopicPartition topicPartition, long
> > > leaderEpoch).
> > > > > > >> When there is an unclean leader election, it's possible for the
> > > new
> > > > > > leader
> > > > > > >> to not to include certain epochs in its epoch cache. How are
> > > remote
> > > > > > >> segments associated with those epochs being cleaned? 601.5 The
> > KIP
> > > > > > >> discusses the handling of unclean leader elections for user
> > > topics. What
> > > > > > >> about unclean leader elections on
> > > > > > >> __remote_log_segment_metadata?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 602. It would be useful to clarify the limitations in the
> > initial
> > > > > > release.
> > > > > > >> The KIP mentions not supporting compacted topics. What about
> > JBOD
> > > and
> > > > > > >> changing the configuration of a topic from delete to compact
> > after
> > > > > > remote.
> > > > > > >> log. storage. enable ( http://remote.log.storage.enable/ ) is
> > > enabled?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 603. RLM leader tasks:
> > > > > > >> 603.1"It checks for rolled over LogSegments (which have the last
> > > message
> > > > > > >> offset less than last stable offset of that topic partition) and
> > > copies
> > > > > > >> them along with their offset/time/transaction indexes and leader
> > > epoch
> > > > > > >> cache to the remote tier." It needs to copy the producer
> > snapshot
> > > too.
> > > > > > >> 603.2 "Local logs are not cleaned up till those segments are
> > > copied
> > > > > > >> successfully to remote even though their retention time/size is
> > > reached"
> > > > > > >> This seems weird. If the tiering stops because the remote store
> > > is not
> > > > > > >> available, we don't want the local data to grow forever.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 604. "RLM maintains a bounded cache(possibly LRU) of the index
> > > files of
> > > > > > >> remote log segments to avoid multiple index fetches from the
> > > remote
> > > > > > >> storage. These indexes can be used in the same way as local
> > > segment
> > > > > > >> indexes are used." Could you provide more details on this? Are
> > the
> > > > > > indexes
> > > > > > >> cached in memory or on disk? If on disk, where are they stored?
> > > Are the
> > > > > > >> cached indexes bound by a certain size?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 605. BuildingRemoteLogAux
> > > > > > >> 605.1 In this section, two options are listed. Which one is
> > > chosen?
> > > > > > 605.2
> > > > > > >> In option 2, it says "Build the local leader epoch cache by
> > > cutting the
> > > > > > >> leader epoch sequence received from remote storage to [LSO,
> > ELO].
> > > (LSO
> > > > > > >> = log start offset)." We need to do the same thing for the
> > > producer
> > > > > > >> snapshot. However, it's hard to cut the producer snapshot to an
> > > earlier
> > > > > > >> offset. Another option is to simply take the lastOffset from the
> > > remote
> > > > > > >> segment and use that as the starting fetch offset in the
> > > follower. This
> > > > > > >> avoids the need for cutting.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 606. ListOffsets: Since we need a version bump, could you
> > > document it
> > > > > > >> under a protocol change section?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 607. "LogStartOffset of a topic can point to either of local
> > > segment or
> > > > > > >> remote segment but it is initialised and maintained in the Log
> > > class
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > >> now. This is already maintained in `Log` class while loading the
> > > logs
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> it can also be fetched from RemoteLogMetadataManager." What will
> > > happen
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> the existing logic (e.g. log recovery) that currently depends on
> > > > > > >> logStartOffset but assumes it's local?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 608. Handle expired remote segment: How does it pick up new
> > > > > > logStartOffset
> > > > > > >> from deleteRecords?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 609. RLMM message format:
> > > > > > >> 609.1 It includes both MaxTimestamp and EventTimestamp. Where
> > > does it
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > >> both since the message in the log only contains one timestamp?
> > > 609.2 If
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> change just the state (e.g. to DELETE_STARTED), it seems it's
> > > wasteful
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> have to include all other fields not changed. 609.3 Could you
> > > document
> > > > > > >> which process makes the following transitions DELETE_MARKED,
> > > > > > >> DELETE_STARTED, DELETE_FINISHED?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 610. remote.log.reader.max.pending.tasks: "Maximum remote log
> > > reader
> > > > > > >> thread pool task queue size. If the task queue is full, broker
> > > will stop
> > > > > > >> reading remote log segments." What does the broker do if the
> > > queue is
> > > > > > >> full?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 611. What do we return if the request offset/epoch doesn't exist
> > > in the
> > > > > > >> following API?
> > > > > > >> RemoteLogSegmentMetadata remoteLogSegmentMetadata(TopicPartition
> > > > > > >> topicPartition, long offset, int epochForOffset)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Jun
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 11:19 AM Satish Duggana < satish.
> > duggana@
> > > > > > gmail. com
> > > > > > >> ( satish.dugg...@gmail.com ) > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> KIP is updated with
> > > > > > >>> - Remote log segment metadata topic message format/schema.
> > > > > > >>> - Added remote log segment metadata state transitions and
> > > explained how
> > > > > > >>> the deletion of segments is handled, including the case of
> > > partition
> > > > > > >>> deletions.
> > > > > > >>> - Added a few more limitations in the "Non goals" section.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>> Satish.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 12:42 AM Harsha Ch < harsha. ch@
> > gmail.
> > > com (
> > > > > > >>> harsha...@gmail.com ) > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Updated the KIP with Meeting Notes section
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> https:/ / cwiki. apache. org/ confluence/ display/ KAFKA/
> > > > > > KIP-405 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KIP-405>
> > > %3A+Kafka+Tiered+Storage#KIP405:KafkaTieredStorage-MeetingNotes
> > > > > > >>> (
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-405%3A+Kafka+Tiered+Storage#KIP405:KafkaTieredStorage-MeetingNotes
> > > > > > >>> )
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 1:03 PM Jun Rao < jun@ confluent. io
> > (
> > > > > > >>>> j...@confluent.io ) > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Hi, Harsha,
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the summary. Could you add the summary and the
> > > recording
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> link to
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> the last section of
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> https:/ / cwiki. apache. org/ confluence/ display/ KAFKA/
> > > > > > Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > > >>> (
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > > > > > >>> )
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> ?
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Jun
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:12 AM Harsha Chintalapani < kafka@
> > > > > > harsha. io (
> > > > > > >>>>> ka...@harsha.io ) > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks everyone for attending the meeting today.
> > > > > > >>>>>> Here is the recording
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> https:/ / drive. google. com/ file/ d/
> > > > > > 14PRM7U0OopOOrJR197VlqvRX5SXNtmKj/ view?usp=sharing
> > > > > > >>> (
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/14PRM7U0OopOOrJR197VlqvRX5SXNtmKj/view?usp=sharing
> > > > > > >>> )
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Notes:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> 1. KIP is updated with follower fetch protocol and ready to
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> reviewed
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> 2. Satish to capture schema of internal metadata topic in
> > the
> > > KIP
> > > > > > >>>>>> 3. We will update the KIP with details of different cases
> > > > > > >>>>>> 4. Test plan will be captured in a doc and will add to the
> > KIP
> > > > > > >>>>>> 5. Add a section "Limitations" to capture the capabilities
> > > that
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> will
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> be
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> introduced with this KIP and what will not be covered in
> > this
> > > KIP.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Please add to it I missed anything. Will produce a formal
> > > meeting
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> notes
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> from next meeting onwards.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>>>> Harsha
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:42 PM, Ying Zheng < yingz@ uber.
> > > com.
> > > > > > invalid (
> > > > > > >>>>>> yi...@uber.com.invalid ) > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> We did some basic feature tests at Uber. The test cases and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> results are
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> shared in this google doc:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> https:/ / docs. google. com/ spreadsheets/ d/ (
> > > > > > >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ )
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > 1XhNJqjzwXvMCcAOhEH0sSXU6RTvyoSf93DHF-YMfGLk/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> The performance test results were already shared in the KIP
> > > last
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> month.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:10 AM Harsha Ch < harsha. ch@
> > > gmail.
> > > > > > com (
> > > > > > >>>>>>> harsha...@gmail.com ) >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> "Understand commitments towards driving design &
> > > implementation of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> KIP
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> further and how it aligns with participant interests in
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> contributing to
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> efforts (ex: in the context of Uber’s Q3/Q4 roadmap)." What
> > > is that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> about?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:05 AM Kowshik Prakasam <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> kprakasam@ confluent. io ( kpraka...@confluent.io ) >
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Harsha,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> The following google doc contains a proposal for temporary
> > > agenda
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> for
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> KIP-405 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KIP-405> <
> > > https:/ / issues. apache. org/ jira/ browse/ KIP-405
> > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KIP-405> (
> > > > > > >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KIP-405 ) > sync
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> meeting
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> tomorrow:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> https:/ / docs. google. com/ document/ d/ (
> > > > > > >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/ )
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 1pqo8X5LU8TpwfC_iqSuVPezhfCfhGkbGN2TqiPA3LBU/edit
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> .
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Please could you add it to the Google calendar invite?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thank you.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Kowshik
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 10:58 AM Harsha Ch < harsha. ch@
> > > gmail.
> > > > > > com (
> > > > > > >>>>>>> harsha...@gmail.com ) >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi All,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Scheduled a meeting for Tuesday 9am - 10am. I can record
> > and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> upload for
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> community to be able to follow the discussion.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Jun, please add the required folks on confluent side.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Harsha
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 12:33 AM, Alexandre Dupriez <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> alexandre.dupriez@
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> gmail. com ( http://gmail.com/ ) > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Jun,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Many thanks for your initiative.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> If you like, I am happy to attend at the time you
> > suggested.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Many thanks,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Alexandre
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Le mer. 19 août 2020 à 22:00, Harsha Ch < harsha. ch@
> > > gmail. com (
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> harsha.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> ch@ gmail. com ( c...@gmail.com ) ) > a écrit :
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Jun,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks. This will help a lot. Tuesday will work for us.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> -Harsha
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:24 PM Jun Rao < jun@ confluent.
> > > io (
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> jun@
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> confluent. io ( http://confluent.io/ ) ) > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi, Satish, Ying, Harsha,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Do you think it would be useful to have a regular virtual
> > > meeting
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> discuss this KIP? The goal of the meeting will be sharing
> > > > > > >>>>>>> design/development progress and discussing any open issues
> > to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> accelerate
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> this KIP. If so, will every Tuesday (from next week)
> > 9am-10am
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> PT
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> work for you? I can help set up a Zoom meeting, invite
> > > everyone who
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> might
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> be interested, have it recorded and shared, etc.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Jun
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:01 AM Satish Duggana <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> satish. duggana@ gmail. com ( satish. duggana@ gmail. com
> > (
> > > > > > >>>>>>> satish.dugg...@gmail.com ) ) >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Kowshik,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks for looking into the KIP and sending your comments.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 5001. Under the section "Follower fetch protocol in
> > detail",
> > > the
> > > > > > >>>>>>> next-local-offset is the offset upto which the segments are
> > > copied
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > >
