Thanks Calvin, +1 from me.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 9:41 AM Calvin Liu <ca...@confluent.io.invalid>
wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> Updated the fields accordingly. Also, rename the BrokerState to
> ReplicaState.
> Thanks.
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 4:38 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io.invalid
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Calvin,
> >
> > The `BrokerState` struct I suggested would replace the `BrokerId` field
> in
> > older versions.
> >
> > { "name": "ReplicaId", "type": "int32", "versions": "0-13",
> > "entityType": "brokerId",
> > "about": "The broker ID of the follower, of -1 if this request is
> > from a consumer." },
> > { "name": "BrokerState", "type": "BrokerState", "taggedVersions":
> > "14+", "tag": 1, "fields": [
> > { "name": "BrokerId", "type": "int32", "versions": "14+",
> > "entityType": "brokerId",
> > "about": "The broker ID of the follower, of -1 if this request is
> > from a consumer." },
> > { "name": "BrokerEpoch", "type": "int64", "versions": "14+",
> "about":
> > "The epoch of this follower." }
> > ]},
> >
> > Note that the version range of `ReplicaId` is set to 0-13. Version 14
> > onward would not include it.
> >
> > -Jason
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:07 PM Calvin Liu <ca...@confluent.io.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > To Jose:
> > > 1. Actually I have a second thoughts about the naming ReplicaEpoch. The
> > > BrokerEpoch only applies to the replication protocol between the
> brokers.
> > > For others like the KRaft controller, this field can be ignored. So can
> > we
> > > change the name to ReplicaEpoch when we really use it in other
> scenarios?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 11:08 AM Calvin Liu <ca...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > To Jason:
> > > > 1. Related to the Fetch Request fields change, previously you
> suggested
> > > > deprecating the ReplicaId and moving it into a BrokerState field. How
> > > about
> > > > we just make the BrokerEpoch a tag field?
> > > > - The ReplicaId is currently in use and is filled every time. So that
> > we
> > > > can keep the way simple.
> > > > - We can still make the optional BrokerEpoch out of the request when
> it
> > > is
> > > > not needed.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 10:39 PM Calvin Liu <ca...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> To Jason:
> > > >> 1. We can make the BrokerEpoch a tagged field. But I am not sure
> about
> > > >> your proposed metadata structure. In the BrokerState, do we need to
> > > store
> > > >> the BrokerId again? It would duplicate with ReplicaId.
> > > >> 2. Considering that the broker reboot data loss case is rare and
> Kraft
> > > is
> > > >> coming soon. Plus we need extra effort to
> > > >> - Simply asking the controller to compare the epoch with its best
> > > >> knowledge is not enough, because the ZK controller may not know the
> > > latest
> > > >> broker epoch,
> > > >> - The current design only helps with the delayed AlterPartition
> issue
> > > >> when the broker reboots. In ZK mode, we also need to cover the
> broker
> > > >> reboot + controller reboot scenario. If the reboot broker is in ISR
> > > >> already, the controller also crashes during the broker reboot, the
> new
> > > >> controller can be completely unaware of the bounced broker and
> select
> > > this
> > > >> broker as the leader.
> > > >> - Create a test framework to simulate the event sequence of broker
> > > reboot
> > > >> and registration, delayed AlterPartition request.
> > > >>
> > > >> To Jose:
> > > >> 1. Thanks for the renaming advice. I will update the KIP later.
> > > >> 2. Ack, will update.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 2:49 PM José Armando García Sancio
> > > >> <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi Calvin,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks for the improvement.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 1. In the KIP, you suggest changing the Fetch request to "Rename
> the
> > > >>> ReplicaId to BrokerId" and "Add a new Field BrokerEpoch". The Fetch
> > > >>> RPC is used by replicas that are not brokers, for example
> controllers
> > > >>> in KRaft.
> > > >>> Can we keep the name "ReplicaId" and use "ReplicaEpoch". Both KRaft
> > > >>> and ISR partitions have the concept of replica id and replica epoch
> > > >>> but not necessarily the concept of a broker.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 2. Since the new field "BrokerEpoch '' is ignorable, should it also
> > > >>> have a default value? How about -1 since that is what you use in
> > > >>> AlterPartittion RPC.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> -José
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
