Hello everyone Since, I believe I have addressed all the concerns that were raised here, I have started a vote thread for this KIP at https://lists.apache.org/thread/39dmfkd7ktb0oo44yqrkndcn4kcqt5hc
Please participate in the vote. -- Divij Vaidya On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 12:33 PM Divij Vaidya <divijvaidy...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback folks. > > *Jun* > > 10. Fixed it. It now says 2 as the new default for recovery threads. > > 11. I have added a sentence that we will apply the defaults for both > broker level and equivalent topic level configs. I have further added both > the broker level and the topic level config to the table. For example, you > may notice (message.timestamp.after.max.ms / > log.message.timestamp.after.max.ms). Furthermore, the constraints will > apply (similar to constraints today) when validating dynamically changed > configuration and also when validating static configuration (such as > server.properties). Please let me know if I have missed anything. > > 12. In the interest of time, I have removed the constraint proposal for rf > >= min.insync.replicas. We will circle back on it in a separate KIP. > > *Luke* > > 10 and 12 above should align with what you suggested. > > -- > Divij Vaidya > > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 4:00 AM Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Divij and Jun, >> >> Thanks for your comments. >> I'm good we put the default value of num.recovery.threads.per.data.dir to >> 2 >> since there are many factors that need to be considered. >> >> And James, good point of min.insync.replicas validation. If it's >> complicated or will confuse users, I'd propose we leave it out of v4.0.0. >> >> Thanks. >> Luke >> >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 2:31 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: >> >> > Hi, Divij, >> > >> > Thanks for the reply. A few more comments. >> > >> > 10. num.recovery.threads.per.data.dir still seems to depend on the >> number >> > of cores. >> > >> > 11. Some of the configs on the server side exist at different levels >> > (static, broker, topic, etc) with slightly different names. It would be >> > useful to be clear at what level the new default and the constraint >> apply. >> > >> > 12. James had a good point on min.insync.replicas. It would be useful to >> > define when the constraint applies (topic creation, config changes, >> etc). >> > For example, if the broker-level min.insync.replicas value is changed >> to 2, >> > what happens to existing topics with replication factor 1? If a topic >> has >> > min.insync.replicas of 2, what happens to an AlterPartitionReassignments >> > request that wants to reduce the replication factor to 1? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Jun >> > >> > On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 9:57 AM Divij Vaidya <divijvaidy...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Jun >> > > >> > > Thank you for the feedback. I have removed the configuration changes >> > where >> > > we are relying on num cores. The only change I have kept is increasing >> > > recovery threads to 2 (from 1 as default). >> > > >> > > James >> > > >> > > Thank you for bringing the JIRA to my attention. I haven't looked >> deeply >> > > into the implementation but based on my understanding of the Kafka >> code >> > > base, I do believe that there is a path to implement this constraint. >> We >> > > will cross that bridge during the implementation phase and I will >> ensure >> > > that I look at the historical context you provided in the JIRA. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Divij Vaidya >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 6:48 AM James Cheng <wushuja...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > About replication.factor >= min.insync.replicas change, you should >> look >> > > at >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4680 . That JIRA talks >> > about >> > > > some of the complexities of detecting it. For example, what if a >> topic >> > > has >> > > > replication factor 1, but someone changes the broker-level >> > > > min.insync.replicas value to 2? How would that be detected? >> > > > >> > > > That JIRA has an associated PR. The PR has some comments that link >> to >> > > > discussions on this mailing list. >> > > > >> > > > That PR, btw, was just closed due to being stale. >> > > > >> > > > -James >> > > > >> > > > Sent from my iPhone >> > > > >> > > > > On Nov 18, 2024, at 2:15 AM, Divij Vaidya < >> divijvaidy...@gmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > Hey folks >> > > > > >> > > > > With 4.0, we have an opportunity to reset the default values and >> add >> > > > > constraints in the configurations based on our learnings since >> 3.0. >> > > > > >> > > > > Here's a KIP which modifies defaults for some properties and >> modifies >> > > the >> > > > > constraints for a few others. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1030%3A+Change+constraints+and+default+values+for+various+configurations >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Looking forward for your feedback. >> > > > > >> > > > > (Previous discussion thread on this topic - >> > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/3dx9mdmsqf8pko9xdmhks80k96g650zp >> ) >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
