> I would generally say a LAN is better than a WAN for doing group > coordinaton
For sure, but a LAN is better than a WAN for producing messages too. If there is network congestion during network production, messages will be dropped. With MirrorMaker currently, you can either skip these dropped messages, or have the MirrorMaker processes themselves die on produce failure, which will also cause (a series) of MirrorMaker consumer rebalances. On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 7:58 AM Jan Filipiak <jan.filip...@trivago.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Currently MirrorMaker is usually run collocated with the target cluster. > This is all nice and good. But one big obstacle in this was > always that group coordination happened on the source cluster. So when > then network was congested, you sometimes loose group membership and > have to rebalance and all this. > > So one big request from we would be the support of having coordination > cluster != source cluster. > > I would generally say a LAN is better than a WAN for doing group > coordinaton and there is no reason we couldn't have a group consuming > topics from a different cluster and committing offsets to another one > right? > > Other than that. It feels like the KIP has too much features where many > of them are not really wanted and counter productive but I will just > wait and see how the discussion goes. > > Best Jan > > > On 15.10.2018 18:16, Ryanne Dolan wrote: > > Hey y'all! > > > > Please take a look at KIP-382: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-382%3A+MirrorMaker+2.0 > > > > Thanks for your feedback and support. > > > > Ryanne > > >
