I created KAFKA-3012 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3012> to track this change. I am open to other strategies to reduce/eliminate collisions too.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Grant Henke <ghe...@cloudera.com> wrote: > There is some discussion on KAFKA-1070 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1070> around the design > choice and compatibility. The value 1000 was thrown out as a quick example > but it was never discussed beyond that. The discussion also sites a few > cases where a value of 1000 would cause issue. > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > >> Hi Grant, >> >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Grant Henke <ghe...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> >> > I have seen a few issues utilizing the default value of >> > reserved.broker.max.id=1000 in existing clusters during upgrades. >> >> >> 1000 seems a bit low to me too and a larger number seems safer. It would >> be >> good to understand the reasoning for the original choice before changing >> it >> though. >> >> Best, >> Ismael >> > > > > -- > Grant Henke > Software Engineer | Cloudera > gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke > -- Grant Henke Software Engineer | Cloudera gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke
