Hi Hailey, thanks for the KIP. I also agree that the two mutually exclusive args are better. In order to be consistent with the other tools, I would suggest to use --process-role and --node-id (hyphen instead of dot). Can you also update the KIP?
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 10:18 PM Hailey Ni <h...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > Hi Kamal, > > I think the broker.id property has been replaced with the `node.id` property > in KRaft. The documentation for `node.id` says it is required ( > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/72e275f6ea867747e6b4e524c80d5ebd726ac25b/core/src/main/scala/kafka/server/KafkaConfig.scala#L741), > and the QuickStart files all use it ( > https://github.com/apache/kafka/tree/72e275f6ea867747e6b4e524c80d5ebd726ac25b/config/kraft). > It is technically true that these two configs are treated as synonyms of > one another ( > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/72e275f6ea867747e6b4e524c80d5ebd726ac25b/core/src/main/scala/kafka/server/KafkaConfig.scala#L1587-L1597), > so if you specify either one the process will still recognize it and > start. But it makes sense to exclusively use `node.id` in KRaft because a > node isn't necessarily a broker anymore; it could be a controller (or even > a combined broker+controller). > > Thanks, > Hailey > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 1:17 PM Hailey Ni <h...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Hi Ismeal, > > > > Thanks for the comments. I'll change the implementation to use a pair of > > mutually exclusive args --process.roles and --node.id. > > > > Thanks, > > Hailey > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:34 AM Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi Ron, > >> > >> Yes, that's what I am proposing, yes. > >> > >> Ismael > >> > >> On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 2:30 PM Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks, Ismael. I think you are proposing a pair of mutually exclusive > >> > args --process.roles and --node.id, right? I agree that is more > >> > user-friendly than the --required-config arg, and it comes at the > >> possible > >> > expense of generality. So that’s the tradeoff between the two, I think. > >> > No other config comes to mind now that we’ve identified these two. I > >> think > >> > the two specific and mutually exclusive parameters would be the way to > >> go > >> > unless someone else identifies still more options that people might > >> want. > >> > > >> > Did I get that right, or were you proposing something different? > >> > > >> > Ron > >> > > >> > > On Sep 30, 2023, at 10:42 AM, Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for the KIP. I think this approach based on configs is a bit > >> too > >> > > open ended and not very user friendly. Why don't we simply provide > >> flags > >> > > for the things a user may care about? So far, it seems like we have > >> two > >> > > good candidates (node id and process role). Are there any others? > >> > > > >> > > Ismael > >> > > > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 6:19 PM Hailey Ni <h...@confluent.io.invalid> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Ron, > >> > >> > >> > >> I think you made a great point, making the "name" arbitrary instead > >> of > >> > >> hard-coding it will make the functionality much more flexible. I've > >> > updated > >> > >> the KIP and the code accordingly. Thanks for the great idea! > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Hailey > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 2:34 PM Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thanks, Hailey. Is there a reason to restrict it to just > >> > >>> process.roles and node.id? Someone might want to do > >> > >>> "--required-config any.name=whatever.value", for example, and at > >> first > >> > >>> glance I don't see a reason why the implementation should be any > >> > >>> different -- it seems it would probably be easier to not have to > >> worry > >> > >>> about restricting to specific cases, actually. WDYT? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Ron > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 5:12 PM Hailey Ni <h...@confluent.io.invalid > >> > > >> > >>> wrote: > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Updated. Please let me know if you have any additional comments. > >> Thank > >> > >>> you! > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 3:02 PM Hailey Ni <h...@confluent.io> > >> wrote: > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>>> Hi Ron. Thanks for the response. I agree with your point. I'll > >> make > >> > >> the > >> > >>>>> corresponding changes in the KIP and KAFKA-15471 > >> > >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-15471>. > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 1:40 PM Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> > >> > >>> wrote: > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>>> Hi Hailey. No, I just looked, and zookeeper-server-stop does not > >> > >> have > >> > >>>>>> any facility to be specific about which ZK nodes to signal. So > >> > >>>>>> providing the ability in kafka-server-stop to be more specific > >> than > >> > >>>>>> just "signal all controllers" or "signal all brokers" would be a > >> > >> bonus > >> > >>>>>> and therefore not necessarily required. But if it is easy to > >> > >> achieve > >> > >>>>>> and doesn't add any additional cognitive load -- and at first > >> glance > >> > >>>>>> it does seem so -- we should probably just support it. > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> Ron > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 6:15 PM Hailey Ni > >> <h...@confluent.io.invalid > >> > >>> > >> > >>>>>> wrote: > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> Hi Ron, > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> Thank you very much for the comment. I think it makes sense to > >> me > >> > >>> that > >> > >>>>>> we > >> > >>>>>>> provide an even more specific way to kill individual > >> > >>>>>> controllers/brokers. > >> > >>>>>>> I have one question: does the command line for ZooKeeper cluster > >> > >>> provide > >> > >>>>>>> such a way to kill individual controllers/brokers? > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >> > >>>>>>> Hailey > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 11:01 AM Ron Dagostino < > >> rndg...@gmail.com > >> > >>> > >> > >>>>>> wrote: > >> > >>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP, Hailey. It will be nice to provide some > >> > >>>>>>>> fine-grained control for when people running the broker and > >> > >>> controller > >> > >>>>>>>> this way want to stop just one of them. > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> One thing that occurs to me is that in a development > >> environment > >> > >>>>>>>> someone might want to run multiple controllers and multiple > >> > >>> brokers > >> > >>>>>>>> all on the same box, and in that case they might want to > >> > >> actually > >> > >>> stop > >> > >>>>>>>> just one controller or just one broker instead of all of them. > >> > >>> So I'm > >> > >>>>>>>> wondering if maybe instead of supporting kafka-server-stop > >> > >>>>>>>> [--process.roles <value>] we might want to instead support > >> > >>>>>>>> kafka-server-stop [--required-config <name=value>]. If someone > >> > >>> wanted > >> > >>>>>>>> to stop any/all controllers and not touch the broker(s) they > >> > >> could > >> > >>>>>>>> still achieve that by invoking kafka-server-stop > >> > >> --required-config > >> > >>>>>>>> process.roles=controller. But if they did want to stop a > >> > >>> particular > >> > >>>>>>>> controller they could then also achieve that via > >> > >> kafka-server-stop > >> > >>>>>>>> --required-config node.id=1 (for example). What do you think? > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> Ron > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 5:56 PM Hailey Ni > >> > >>> <h...@confluent.io.invalid> > >> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> I would like to start the discussion about *KIP-979: Allow > >> > >>>>>> independently > >> > >>>>>>>>> stop KRaft controllers or brokers* < > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-979%3A+Allow+independently+stop+KRaft+controllers+or+brokers > >> > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> It proposes adding an optional field "--process.roles <value>" > >> > >>> in > >> > >>>>>> the > >> > >>>>>>>>> script to allow users to independently stop either KRaft > >> > >> broker > >> > >>>>>> processes > >> > >>>>>>>>> or controller processes. While in the past, all processes were > >> > >>>>>> killed > >> > >>>>>>>> using > >> > >>>>>>>>> a single script. > >> > >>>>>>>>> Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Much > >> > >>>>>>>> appreciated. > >> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards, > >> > >>>>>>>>> Hailey > >> > >>>>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >
