Hi Dong, Thanks for your reply.
Yeah I agree with you that the total disk capacity can be useful > particularly if it is different across brokers but it is probably of > limited use in most cases. I also expect that most users would have their > own customized tool across to determine the new partition reassignment > after retrieving the partition distribution using DescribeDirsRequest. By not providing a tool, you're just forcing people to write their own. So your expectation will be self-fulfilling. Surely it would be better if the project provided a tool (perhaps one which did the boring bits and gave people the option to provide their own customized algorithm). > And > that customized tool can probably be easily provided with the configuration > (e.g. disk capacity, IO parameters) of the disks in the cluster when user > runs it. > Sure, but it would be better if a tool could discover this for itself. At best you're forcing people into getting the information out-of-band (e.g. via JMX), but worse would be if they end up using static data that doesn't change as their cluster evolves over time. > I am relatively neural on whether or not we should add this field. If there > is no strong reason to add this field, I will add it if one or more > committer recommends to do this. > I don't think we should add it to KIP-113: It could be added at a later date easily enough. Cheers, Tom
