Hey Colin,
I think there's some confusion here so I might change the name of this. So
KIP-435 is about the internal batching of reassignments (so purely a
controller change) and not about client side APIs. As per this moment these
kind of improvements are listed on KIP-455's future work section so in my
understanding KIP-455 won't touch that :).
Let me know if I'm missing any points here.
Viktor
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:02 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Viktor,
>
> Now that the 2.3 release is over, we're going to be turning our attention
> back to working on KIP-455, which provides an API for partition
> reassignment, and also solves the incremental reassignment problem. Sorry
> about the pause, but I had to focus on the stuff that was going into 2.3.
>
> I think last time we talked about this, the consensus was that KIP-455
> supersedes KIP-435, since KIP-455 supports incremental reassignment. We
> also don't want to add more technical debt in the form of a new
> ZooKeeper-based API that we'll have to support for a while. So let's focus
> on KIP-455 here. We have more resources now so I think we'll be able to
> get it done soonish.
>
> best,
> Colin
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, at 08:09, Viktor Somogyi-Vass wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I have added another improvement to this, which is to limit the parallel
> > leader movements. I think I'll soon (maybe late this week or early next)
> > start a vote on this too if there are no additional feedback.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Viktor
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 1:26 PM Viktor Somogyi-Vass <
> viktorsomo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > I've updated the KIP with the batching which would work on both replica
> > > and partition level. To explain it briefly: for instance if the replica
> > > level is set to 2 and partition level is set to 3, then 2x3=6 replica
> > > reassignment would be in progress at the same time. In case of
> reassignment
> > > for a single partition from (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) to (5, 6, 7, 8, 9) we would
> > > form the batches (0, 1) → (5, 6); (2, 3) → (7, 8) and 4 → 9 and would
> > > execute the reassignment in this order.
> > >
> > > Let me know what you think.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Viktor
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 7:01 PM Viktor Somogyi-Vass <
> > > viktorsomo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> A follow up on the batching topic to clarify my points above.
> > >>
> > >> Generally I think that batching should be a core feature as Colin said
> > >> the controller should possess all information that are related.
> > >> Also Cruise Control (or really any 3rd party admin system) might build
> > >> upon this to give more holistic approach to balance brokers. We may
> cater
> > >> them with APIs that act like building blocks to make their life
> easier like
> > >> incrementalization, batching, cancellation and rollback but I think
> the
> > >> more advanced we go we'll need more advanced control surface and
> Kafka's
> > >> basic tooling might not be suitable for that.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Viktor
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 18:22 Viktor Somogyi-Vass, <
> viktorsomo...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hey Guys,
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll reply to you all in this email:
> > >>>
> > >>> @Jun:
> > >>> 1. yes, it'd be a good idea to add this feature, I'll write this into
> > >>> the KIP. I was actually thinking about introducing a dynamic config
> called
> > >>> reassignment.parallel.partition.count and
> > >>> reassignment.parallel.replica.count. The first property would
> control how
> > >>> many partition reassignment can we do concurrently. The second would
> go one
> > >>> level in granularity and would control how many replicas do we want
> to move
> > >>> for a given partition. Also one more thing that'd be useful to fix
> is that
> > >>> a given list of partition -> replica list would be executed in the
> same
> > >>> order (from first to last) so it's overall predictable and the user
> would
> > >>> have some control over the order of reassignments should be
> specified as
> > >>> the JSON is still assembled by the user.
> > >>> 2. the /kafka/brokers/topics/{topic} znode to be specific. I'll
> update
> > >>> the KIP to contain this.
> > >>>
> > >>> @Jason:
> > >>> I think building this functionality into Kafka would definitely
> benefit
> > >>> all the users and that CC as well as it'd simplify their software as
> you
> > >>> said. As I understand the main advantage of CC and other similar
> softwares
> > >>> are to give high level features for automatic load balancing.
> Reliability,
> > >>> stability and predictability of the reassignment should be a core
> feature
> > >>> of Kafka. I think the incrementalization feature would make it more
> stable.
> > >>> I would consider cancellation too as a core feature and we can leave
> the
> > >>> gate open for external tools to feed in their reassignment json as
> they
> > >>> want. I was also thinking about what are the set of features we can
> provide
> > >>> for Kafka but I think the more advanced we go the more need there is
> for an
> > >>> administrative UI component.
> > >>> Regarding KIP-352: Thanks for pointing this out, I didn't see this
> > >>> although lately I was also thinking about the throttling aspect of
> it.
> > >>> Would be a nice add-on to Kafka since though the above configs
> provide some
> > >>> level of control, it'd be nice to put an upper cap on the bandwidth
> and
> > >>> make it monitorable.
> > >>>
> > >>> Viktor
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 2:57 AM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Colin,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On a related note, what do you think about the idea of storing the
> > >>>> > reassigning replicas in
> > >>>> > /brokers/topics/[topic]/partitions/[partitionId]/state, rather
> than
> > >>>> in the
> > >>>> > reassignment znode? I don't think this requires a major change
> to the
> > >>>> > proposal-- when the controller becomes aware that it should do a
> > >>>> > reassignment, the controller could make the changes. This also
> helps
> > >>>> keep
> > >>>> > the reassignment znode from getting larger, which has been a
> problem.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yeah, I think it's a good idea to store the reassignment state at a
> > >>>> finer
> > >>>> level. I'm not sure the LeaderAndIsr znode is the right one though.
> > >>>> Another
> > >>>> option is /brokers/topics/{topic}. That is where we currently store
> the
> > >>>> replica assignment. I think we basically want to represent both the
> > >>>> current
> > >>>> state and the desired state. This would also open the door to a
> cleaner
> > >>>> way
> > >>>> to update a reassignment while it is still in progress.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -Jason
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 11:14 PM George Li <sql_consult...@yahoo.com
> > >>>> .invalid>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> > Hi Colin / Jason,
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > Reassignment should really be doing a batches. I am not too
> worried
> > >>>> about
> > >>>> > reassignment znode getting larger. In a real production
> > >>>> environment, too
> > >>>> > many concurrent reassignment and too frequent submission of
> > >>>> reassignments
> > >>>> > seemed to cause latency spikes of kafka cluster. So
> > >>>> > batching/staggering/throttling of submitting reassignments is
> > >>>> recommended.
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > In KIP-236, The "originalReplicas" are only kept for the current
> > >>>> > reassigning partitions (small #), and kept in memory of the
> controller
> > >>>> > context partitionsBeingReassigned as well as in the znode
> > >>>> > /admin/reassign_partitions, I think below "setting in the RPC
> like
> > >>>> null =
> > >>>> > no replicas are reassigning" is a good idea.
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > There seems to be some issues with the Mail archive server of this
> > >>>> mailing
> > >>>> > list? I didn't receive email after April 7th, and the archive for
> > >>>> April
> > >>>> > 2019 has only 50 messages (
> > >>>> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/kafka-dev/201904.mbox/thread)
> > >>>> ?
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > Thanks,
> > >>>> > George
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > on, 08 Apr 2019 17:54:48 GMT Colin McCabe wrote:
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > Yeah, I think adding this information to LeaderAndIsr makes
> sense.
> > >>>> It
> > >>>> > would be better to track
> > >>>> > "reassigningReplicas" than "originalReplicas", I think. Tracking
> > >>>> > "originalReplicas" is going
> > >>>> > to involve sending a lot more data, since most replicas in the
> system
> > >>>> are
> > >>>> > not reassigning
> > >>>> > at any given point. Or we would need a hack in the RPC like null
> = no
> > >>>> > replicas are reassigning.
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > On a related note, what do you think about the idea of storing the
> > >>>> > reassigning replicas in
> > >>>> > /brokers/topics/[topic]/partitions/[partitionId]/state, rather
> than
> > >>>> in
> > >>>> > the reassignment znode?
> > >>>> > I don't think this requires a major change to the proposal--
> when the
> > >>>> > controller becomes
> > >>>> > aware that it should do a reassignment, the controller could make
> the
> > >>>> > changes. This also
> > >>>> > helps keep the reassignment znode from getting larger, which has
> been
> > >>>> a
> > >>>> > problem.
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > best,
> > >>>> > Colin
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019, at 09:29, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> > >>>> > > Hey George,
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > For the URP during a reassignment, if the "original_replicas"
> is
> > >>>> kept
> > >>>> > for
> > >>>> > > > the current pending reassignment. I think it will be very
> easy to
> > >>>> > compare
> > >>>> > > > that with the topic/partition's ISR. If all
> "original_replicas"
> > >>>> are in
> > >>>> > > > ISR, then URP should be 0 for that topic/partition.
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > Yeah, that makes sense. But I guess we would need
> > >>>> "original_replicas" to
> > >>>> > be
> > >>>> > > propagated to partition leaders in the LeaderAndIsr request
> since
> > >>>> leaders
> > >>>> > > are the ones that are computing URPs. That is basically what
> > >>>> KIP-352 had
> > >>>> > > proposed, but we also need the changes to the reassignment path.
> > >>>> Perhaps
> > >>>> > it
> > >>>> > > makes more sense to address this problem in KIP-236 since that
> is
> > >>>> where
> > >>>> > you
> > >>>> > > have already introduced "original_replicas"? I'm also happy to
> do
> > >>>> KIP-352
> > >>>> > > as a follow-up to KIP-236.
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > Best,
> > >>>> > > Jason
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 5:09 PM Ismael Juma <isma...@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> > > > Good discussion about where we should do batching. I think if
> > >>>> there is
> > >>>> > a
> > >>>> > > > clear great way to batch, then it makes a lot of sense to
> just do
> > >>>> it
> > >>>> > once.
> > >>>> > > > However, if we think there is scope for experimenting with
> > >>>> different
> > >>>> > > > approaches, then an API that tools can use makes a lot of
> sense.
> > >>>> They
> > >>>> > can
> > >>>> > > > experiment and innovate. Eventually, we can integrate
> something
> > >>>> into
> > >>>> > Kafka
> > >>>> > > > if it makes sense.
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > Ismael
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 11:03 PM Colin McCabe <
> cmcc...@apache.org>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > > > > Hi George,
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > As Jason was saying, it seems like there are two directions
> we
> > >>>> could
> > >>>> > go
> > >>>> > > > > here: an external system handling batching, and the
> controller
> > >>>> > handling
> > >>>> > > > > batching. I think the controller handling batching would be
> > >>>> better,
> > >>>> > > > since
> > >>>> > > > > the controller has more information about the state of the
> > >>>> system.
> > >>>> > If
> > >>>> > > > the
> > >>>> > > > > controller handles batching, then the controller could also
> > >>>> handle
> > >>>> > things
> > >>>> > > > > like setting up replication quotas for individual
> partitions.
> > >>>> The
> > >>>> > > > > controller could do things like throttle replication down
> if the
> > >>>> > cluster
> > >>>> > > > > was having problems.
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > We kind of need to figure out which way we're going to go on
> > >>>> this one
> > >>>> > > > > before we set up big new APIs, I think. If we want an
> external
> > >>>> > system to
> > >>>> > > > > handle batching, then we can keep the idea that there is
> only
> > >>>> one
> > >>>> > > > > reassignment in progress at once. If we want the
> controller to
> > >>>> > handle
> > >>>> > > > > batching, we will need to get away from that idea.
> Instead, we
> > >>>> > should
> > >>>> > > > just
> > >>>> > > > > have a bunch of "ideal assignments" that we tell the
> controller
> > >>>> > about,
> > >>>> > > > and
> > >>>> > > > > let it decide how to do the batching. These ideal
> assignments
> > >>>> could
> > >>>> > > > change
> > >>>> > > > > continuously over time, so from the admin's point of view,
> there
> > >>>> > would be
> > >>>> > > > > no start/stop/cancel, but just individual partition
> > >>>> reassignments
> > >>>> > that we
> > >>>> > > > > submit, perhaps over a long period of time. And then
> > >>>> cancellation
> > >>>> > might
> > >>>> > > > > just mean cancelling just that individual partition
> > >>>> reassignment,
> > >>>> > not all
> > >>>> > > > > partition reassignments.
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > best,
> > >>>> > > > > Colin
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019, at 19:34, George Li wrote:
> > >>>> > > > > > Hi Jason / Viktor,
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > For the URP during a reassignment, if the
> > >>>> "original_replicas" is
> > >>>> > kept
> > >>>> > > > > > for the current pending reassignment. I think it will be
> very
> > >>>> easy
> > >>>> > to
> > >>>> > > > > > compare that with the topic/partition's ISR. If all
> > >>>> > > > > > "original_replicas" are in ISR, then URP should be 0 for
> that
> > >>>> > > > > > topic/partition.
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > It would be also nice to separate the metrics
> MaxLag/TotalLag
> > >>>> for
> > >>>> > > > > > Reassignments. I think that will also require
> > >>>> "original_replicas"
> > >>>> > (the
> > >>>> > > > > > topic/partition's replicas just before reassignment when
> the
> > >>>> AR
> > >>>> > > > > > (Assigned Replicas) is set to Set(original_replicas) +
> > >>>> > > > > > Set(new_replicas_in_reassign_partitions) ).
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > Thanks,
> > >>>> > > > > > George
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > On Friday, April 5, 2019, 6:29:55 PM PDT, Jason
> Gustafson
> > >>>> > > > > > <ja...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > Hi Viktor,
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > Thanks for writing this up. As far as questions about
> overlap
> > >>>> with
> > >>>> > > > > KIP-236,
> > >>>> > > > > > I agree it seems mostly orthogonal. I think KIP-236 may
> have
> > >>>> had a
> > >>>> > > > larger
> > >>>> > > > > > initial scope, but now it focuses on cancellation and
> > >>>> batching is
> > >>>> > left
> > >>>> > > > > for
> > >>>> > > > > > future work.
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > With that said, I think we may not actually need a KIP
> for the
> > >>>> > current
> > >>>> > > > > > proposal since it doesn't change any APIs. To make it more
> > >>>> > generally
> > >>>> > > > > > useful, however, it would be nice to handle batching at
> the
> > >>>> > partition
> > >>>> > > > > level
> > >>>> > > > > > as well as Jun suggests. The basic question is at what
> level
> > >>>> > should the
> > >>>> > > > > > batching be determined. You could rely on external
> processes
> > >>>> (e.g.
> > >>>> > > > cruise
> > >>>> > > > > > control) or it could be built into the controller. There
> are
> > >>>> > tradeoffs
> > >>>> > > > > > either way, but I think it simplifies such tools if it is
> > >>>> handled
> > >>>> > > > > > internally. Then it would be much safer to submit a larger
> > >>>> > reassignment
> > >>>> > > > > > even just using the simple tools that come with Kafka.
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > By the way, since you are looking into some of the
> > >>>> reassignment
> > >>>> > logic,
> > >>>> > > > > > another problem that we might want to address is the
> > >>>> misleading
> > >>>> > way we
> > >>>> > > > > > report URPs during a reassignment. I had a naive proposal
> for
> > >>>> this
> > >>>> > > > > > previously, but it didn't really work
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-352%3A+Distinguish+URPs+caused+by+reassignment
> > >>>> > > > > .
> > >>>> > > > > > Potentially fixing that could fall under this work as
> well if
> > >>>> you
> > >>>> > think
> > >>>> > > > > > it
> > >>>> > > > > > makes sense.
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > Best,
> > >>>> > > > > > Jason
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 4:49 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > Hi, Viktor,
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. A couple of comments below.
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > 1. Another potential thing to do reassignment
> incrementally
> > >>>> is to
> > >>>> > > > move
> > >>>> > > > > a
> > >>>> > > > > > > batch of partitions at a time, instead of all
> partitions.
> > >>>> This
> > >>>> > may
> > >>>> > > > > lead to
> > >>>> > > > > > > less data replication since by the time the first batch
> of
> > >>>> > partitions
> > >>>> > > > > have
> > >>>> > > > > > > been completely moved, some data of the next batch may
> have
> > >>>> been
> > >>>> > > > > deleted
> > >>>> > > > > > > due to retention and doesn't need to be replicated.
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > 2. "Update CR in Zookeeper with TR for the given
> partition".
> > >>>> > Which
> > >>>> > ZK
> > >>>> > > > > path
> > >>>> > > > > > > is this for?
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > Jun
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 2:12 AM Viktor Somogyi-Vass <
> > >>>> > > > > > > viktorsomo...@gmail.com>
> > >>>> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > Hi Harsha,
> > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > As far as I understand KIP-236 it's about enabling
> > >>>> reassignment
> > >>>> > > > > > > > cancellation and as a future plan providing a queue of
> > >>>> replica
> > >>>> > > > > > > reassignment
> > >>>> > > > > > > > steps to allow manual reassignment chains. While I
> agree
> > >>>> that
> > >>>> > the
> > >>>> > > > > > > > reassignment chain has a specific use case that allows
> > >>>> fine
> > >>>> > grain
> > >>>> > > > > control
> > >>>> > > > > > > > over reassignment process, My proposal on the other
> hand
> > >>>> > doesn't
> > >>>> > > > talk
> > >>>> > > > > > > about
> > >>>> > > > > > > > cancellation but it only provides an automatic way to
> > >>>> > > > incrementalize
> > >>>> > > > > an
> > >>>> > > > > > > > arbitrary reassignment which I think fits the general
> use
> > >>>> case
> > >>>> > > > where
> > >>>> > > > > > > users
> > >>>> > > > > > > > don't want that level of control but still would like
> a
> > >>>> > balanced
> > >>>> > > > way
> > >>>> > > > > of
> > >>>> > > > > > > > reassignments. Therefore I think it's still relevant
> as an
> > >>>> > > > > improvement of
> > >>>> > > > > > > > the current algorithm.
> > >>>> > > > > > > > Nevertheless I'm happy to add my ideas to KIP-236 as I
> > >>>> think
> > >>>> > it
> > >>>> > > > > would be
> > >>>> > > > > > > a
> > >>>> > > > > > > > great improvement to Kafka.
> > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > >>>> > > > > > > > Viktor
> > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 5:05 PM Harsha <
> ka...@harsha.io>
> > >>>> > wrote:
> > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > Hi Viktor,
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > There is already KIP-236 for the same
> feature
> > >>>> > and
> > >>>> > > > George
> > >>>> > > > > > > made
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > a PR for this as well.
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > Lets consolidate these two discussions. If you have
> any
> > >>>> > cases
> > >>>> > > > that
> > >>>> > > > > are
> > >>>> > > > > > > > not
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > being solved by KIP-236 can you please mention them
> in
> > >>>> > that
> > >>>> > > > > thread. We
> > >>>> > > > > > > > can
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > address as part of KIP-236.
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > Harsha
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019, at 5:44 AM, Viktor
> Somogyi-Vass
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > Hi Folks,
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > I've created a KIP about an improvement of the
> > >>>> reassignment
> > >>>> > > > > algorithm
> > >>>> > > > > > > > we
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > have. It aims to enable partition-wise incremental
> > >>>> > > > reassignment.
> > >>>> > > > > The
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > motivation for this is to avoid excess load that
> the
> > >>>> > current
> > >>>> > > > > > > > replication
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > algorithm implicitly carries as in that case there
> > >>>> > are points
> > >>>> > > > in
> > >>>> > > > > the
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > algorithm where both the new and old replica set
> could
> > >>>> > be
> > >>>> > > > online
> > >>>> > > > > and
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > replicating which puts double (or almost double)
> > >>>> pressure
> > >>>> > on
> > >>>> > > > the
> > >>>> > > > > > > > brokers
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > which could cause problems.
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > Instead my proposal would slice this up into
> several
> > >>>> > steps
> > >>>> > > > where
> > >>>> > > > > each
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > step
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > is calculated based on the final target replicas
> and
> > >>>> > the
> > >>>> > > > current
> > >>>> > > > > > > > replica
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > assignment taking into account scenarios where
> brokers
> > >>>> > could be
> > >>>> > > > > > > offline
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > and
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > when there are not enough replicas to fulfil the
> > >>>> > > > > min.insync.replica
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > requirement.
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > The link to the KIP:
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-435%3A+Incremental+Partition+Reassignment
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > I'd be happy to receive any feedback.
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > An important note is that this KIP and another
> one,
> > >>>> > KIP-236
> > >>>> > > > that
> > >>>> > > > > is
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > about
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > interruptible reassignment (
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-236%3A+Interruptible+Partition+Reassignment
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > )
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > should be compatible.
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > > Viktor
> > >>>> > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > > >
> > >>>> > > > >
> > >>>> > > >
> > >>>> > >
> > >>>> >
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
>
