Hey Ismael, Yeah, my initial inclination was to redefine URP as well. My only doubt was how it would affect existing tools which might depend on URPs to track the progress of a reassignment. I decided to be conservative in the end, but I'd reconsider if we think it is not a major concern. It is annoying to need a new category.
About your question about storage in ZK, I can't think of anything additional that we need. Probably the main difficulty is getting access to the replication factor in the topic utility. My basic thought was just to collect the URPs (as we know them today) and use the config API to partition them based on the replication factor. Do you see any problems with this? -Jason On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Thanks Jason. This is definitely a pain point. I actually prefer the option > to redefine what under-replicated means (currently under rejected > alternatives). Also, do we need to make changes to what we store in ZK? If > so, that should be in the KIP too. > > Ismael > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:45 AM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > Hey All, > > > > Another day, another KIP. This one is hopefully straightforward: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-352% > 3A+Distinguish+URPs+caused+by+reassignment > > . > > Have a look and let me know what you think! > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > >
