Hi,

If there are no further comments, I'll start a vote in the next few days.
Thanks,
Mickael

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 3:51 AM Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mickael,
>
> Thanks for the update.
> It answered my questions!
>
> Thank you.
> Luke
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 12:09 AM Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Luke,
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback.
> >
> > 1. Thanks, fixed!
> > 2. Yes that's right. It's the same behavior for topic policies
> > 3. I've added details about how the mentioned scenarios could be
> > addressed. The information required to make such decisions is not part
> > of the Kafka cluster metadata so an external input is necessary. This
> > KIP does not propose a specific mechanism for doing it.
> >
> > I hope this answers your questions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mickael
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 5:42 PM Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Ryanne,
> > >
> > > That's a good point!
> > >
> > > There's no value in having all implementations perform the same sanity
> > > checks. If the replication factor is < 1 or larger than the current
> > > number of registered brokers, the controller should directly throw
> > > InvalidReplicationFactorException and not call the ReplicaPlacer. I've
> > > updated the KIP so the place() method now only throws
> > > ReplicaPlacementException.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mickael
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 6:20 PM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Wondering about InvalidReplicationFactorException. Why would an
> > > > implementation throw this? Given the information passed to the method,
> > > > seems like this could only be thrown if there were obviously invalid
> > > > arguments, like a negative number or zero. Can we just guarantee such
> > > > invalid arguments aren't passed in?
> > > >
> > > > Ryanne
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 8:51 AM Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Mickael,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the KIP!
> > > > > It's indeed a pain point for the Kafka admins.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have some comments:
> > > > > 1. Typo in motivation section: When administrators [when to] remove
> > brokers
> > > > > from a cluster,....
> > > > > 2. If different `replica.placer.class.name` configs are set in all
> > > > > controllers, I think only the config for  "active controller" will
> > take
> > > > > effect, right?
> > > > > 3. Could you explain more about how the proposal fixes some
> > scenarios you
> > > > > listed, ex: the new added broker case. How could we know the broker
> > is new
> > > > > added? I guess it's by checking the broker load via some metrics
> > > > > dynamically, right?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > > Luke
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:30 AM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks Mickael, this makes sense to me! I've been wanting
> > something like
> > > > > > this in order to decommission a broker without new partitions
> > getting
> > > > > > accidentally assigned to it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022, 5:56 AM Mickael Maison <
> > mickael.mai...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to start a new discussion on KIP-660. I originally
> > wrote this
> > > > > > > KIP in 2020 and the initial discussion
> > > > > > > (
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/xn7xyb74nyt281brto4x28r9rzxm4lp9)
> > > > > > > raised some concerns especially around KRaft (which did not
> > exist at
> > > > > > > that time) and scalability.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since then, we got a new KRaft controller so I've been able to
> > revisit
> > > > > > > this KIP. I kept the KIP number as it's essentially the same
> > idea, but
> > > > > > > the proposal is significantly different:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-660%3A+Pluggable+ReplicaPlacer
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please take a look and let me know if you have any feedback.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Mickael
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> >

Reply via email to