+1
Thanks,
Michael
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:53 AM Nicolò Boschi wrote:
>
> +1
> Thanks
>
> Il giorno ven 14 apr 2023 alle 11:45 Hang Chen ha
> scritto:
>
> > Hi guys,
> > We found one critical regression [1] on the BookKeeper 4.16.0
> > release, and we has one PR [2] to fix it. Due to t
s
> > > > limit
> > > > the adds request memory usage.
> > >
> > > What is the use case for WQ < AQ?
> >
> > it is a typo, WQ must be always >= QA
> >
> > Enrico
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Dave
> > > >
I support adding back pressure based on client memory limits to the
bookkeeper client.
My biggest concern is how the back pressure is propagated to the
client application. If I am reading the draft implementation
correctly, it is via a blocking operation on the calling thread for
the `BookieClient
Makes sense to me. Is the upgrade path straightforward? For example,
Apache Pulsar 2.7.5 currently uses release line 4.12, so it would need
to be upgraded to at least 4.14 if we wanted to stay on a supported
version.
Thanks,
Michael
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 3:08 AM steven lu wrote:
>
> +1 I agre
Hi Bookkeeper Community,
I created an issue [0] yesterday to discuss exposing Rocks DB metrics
via the bookie's /metrics endpoint. My primary focus is exposing
metrics that will help verify that the database is sufficiently
provisioned and to help show the real time interactions between
bookkeeper
Congrats, Nicolò!
- Michael
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 11:10 AM Andrey Yegorov
wrote:
>
> Congrats!
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 7:17 AM ZhangJian He wrote:
>
> > Congratulations Nicolò !
> >
> > Thanks
> > ZhangJian He
> >
> > Matteo Minardi 于2022年3月30日周三 17:36写道：
> >
> > > Congratulations Nico,
> One thing that running the draining on the local bookie doesn't cover,
> is that, if the bookie is down and unrecoverable, the bookie will
> never be drained, so the data on the bookie would remain
> underreplicated.
> Perhaps this is a different case, and needs to be handled differently,
> but
Hi Ivan and Yang,
++1 I am very happy to see this initiative. It will be a fantastic
improvement, and I am happy to help contribute, if help is needed.
I agree that the first step is adding an endpoint to mark a bookie as read
only in a persistent way, and that the "draining" state only really ne
> The only downside will be for users that are using the BK docker image as
> base image, as Ubuntu is very different from Centos and so consumers of
the
> image will have to do some work while upgrading.
How much work would need to be done? Are you just referring to the tooling
that
exists in the
+1 It sounds like a great addition to me, too.
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 11:40 PM r...@apache.org
wrote:
> Thanks Enrico.
>
> > As for as I know there is no plan.
> >
> > I believe it would be great.
>
> It looks like this is a good start to add a Go language client to
> BookKeeper.
>
> Enrico Oli
I'm happy to
implement it.
I think metrics should provide actionable insight into the current state of
a bookkeeper cluster, and in this case, I think a gauge would better
capture the thing being monitored: underreplicated ledgers.
Thanks!
Michael Marshall
11 matches
Mail list logo
