Thanks for the reply.
Yes, I think adding a section in Rejected Alternatives to explain the
rationale why we don't support combined mode upgrade in this KIP is helpful.

Thank you.
Luke

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 8:47 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:

> Hi, David,
>
> Thanks for the reply. No other comments from me.
>
> Jun
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 2:57 PM David Arthur
> <david.art...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Jun,
> >
> > 51. You're right, I missed that in the latest update. It's fixed now.
> >
> > 54. I was thinking we could update meta.properties to v1 as the brokers
> > were being restarted in KRaft mode without the migration config set.
> > However, as you mentioned, it is still possible to downgrade even then
> (as
> > long as the controller has not exited dual-write mode). Upgrading the
> > meta.properties after seeing the final ZkMigrationRecord sounds like a
> good
> > idea to me. I've updated the KIP to include this detail under
> > "Meta.Properties" section.
> >
> > 58. Yes, the metadata migration from ZK to KRaft will not migrate the
> > contents of /brokers.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 4:50 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, David,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the reply.
> > >
> > > 51. Is this reflected in the KIP? It seems that ZkMigrationState still
> > has
> > > the None value.
> > >
> > > 54. Supporting both v0 and v1 indefinitely in a KRaft broker could be a
> > bit
> > > confusing and may complicate future upgrades. Another approach is to
> let
> > > KRaft broker write the v1 meta.properties after the KRaft controller
> > exits
> > > the dual write mode. We could extend ZkMigrationRecord to 3 states like
> > > migration, dualWrite and KRaftOnly. Once a broker sees KRaftOnly, it
> will
> > > write meta.properties in v1 format. At that point, downgrade could
> cause
> > > metadata loss and require manual work. Will that work?
> > >
> > > 58. When copying metadata from ZK to KRaft, I guess we will ignore
> broker
> > > registration since the KRaft controller has already generated a
> > > BrokerRegistrationRecord based on BrokerRegistrationRequest?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jun
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 7:14 AM David Arthur
> > > <david.art...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jun, Thanks for the comments. Igor, please see 54 below for some
> > > additional
> > > > discussion on the meta.properties
> > > >
> > > > 50.1 Yes, that field name sounds fine to me.
> > > >
> > > > 50.2 Ok, I'll add something to the KIP under the Controller section.
> To
> > > > your other question, NoOpRecords are used as part of our liveness
> check
> > > for
> > > > the quorum. It doesn't produce any metadata really, so I don't think
> it
> > > > causes any harm to let it happen before the migration.  KIP-835 has
> the
> > > > details on the NoOpRecords
> > > >
> > > > 54. Colin and I discussed the meta.properties issue last night. How
> > about
> > > > we simply let the KRaft broker accept v0 or v1 meta.properties. At
> this
> > > > point, the two versions have the same contents, but different field
> > > names.
> > > > By leaving the meta.properties intact, we can simplify the downgrade
> > > > process. If we care to, we could rewrite meta.properties once a
> broker
> > is
> > > > restarted after the migration is finalized (migration config
> disabled).
> > > >
> > > > 57. If a ZK broker can't send a BrokerRegistrationRequest because the
> > > > quorum is unavailable, it should just continue operating normally.
> > Once a
> > > > leader is available, the broker will send the registration and start
> > > > heart-beating. Unlike KRaft mode, we won't block startup on a
> > successful
> > > > BrokerRegistration response. Concretely, BrokerLifecycleManager will
> > keep
> > > > trying to contact the quorum in its own thread until the
> > > > BrokerToChannelManager gets a controller ID from KafkaRaftManager.
> This
> > > > shouldn't interfere with other ZK broker activity.
> > > >
> > > > -David
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -David
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -David
> >
>

Reply via email to