Not everything is a broker, though. So --node-id seems better. best, Colin
On Sun, Oct 1, 2023, at 23:08, Kamal Chandraprakash wrote: > Hi Hailey, > > Thanks for working on this! This is one of the long-standing open issues. > Now, users have to find the PID of the respective Kafka process to stop if > more than one node is being run locally for testing purposes. > The updated KIP is addressing that. LGTM. > > Is `node.id` and `broker.id` the same? If yes, can we rename it to ` > broker.id` instead? > > -- > Kamal > > > > On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 3:00 AM 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 >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >>
