Hi all,
We would like to make a change related to this KIP to ensure that transient
exceptions during reassignments are handled as retriable exceptions. Kafka
brokers currently return REPLICA_NOT_AVAILABLE for Fetch requests if the
replica is not available on the broker. But ReplicaNotAvailableExc
I'm going to call this vote.
+1: Me, Ryanne, Guozhang, Eno, David, Viktor, Stephane, Gwen, Jun
Binding total is +5 with no -1 or +0. Thanks all for the discussion and
feedback.
-Jason
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 4:55 PM Jun Rao wrote:
> Hi, Jason,
>
> Thanks for the updated KIP. +1 from me.
>
> J
Hi, Jason,
Thanks for the updated KIP. +1 from me.
Jun
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:26 PM Jason Gustafson wrote:
> Hi Jun,
>
> I have updated the KIP to remove `replica.selection.policy` from the
> consumer configuration. Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> Best,
> Jason
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 9:4
+1
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:26 PM Jason Gustafson wrote:
> Hi Jun,
>
> I have updated the KIP to remove `replica.selection.policy` from the
> consumer configuration. Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> Best,
> Jason
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 9:46 AM Jason Gustafson
> wrote:
>
> > @Jun
> >
> > Re;
Hi Jun,
I have updated the KIP to remove `replica.selection.policy` from the
consumer configuration. Thanks for the suggestion.
Best,
Jason
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 9:46 AM Jason Gustafson wrote:
> @Jun
>
> Re; 200: It's a fair point that it is useful to minimize the client
> changes that are n
@Jun
Re; 200: It's a fair point that it is useful to minimize the client changes
that are needed to get a benefit from affinity. I think the high level
argument that this is mostly the concern of operators and should be under
their control. Since there is a protocol bump here, users will have to
u
Hi, Guozhang,
In general, users may want to optimize affinity in different ways, e.g.
latency, cost, etc. I am not sure if all those cases can by captured by
client IP addresses. So, it seems that having a rack.id in the consumer is
still potentially useful.
Thanks,
Jun
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at
Hello Jun,
Regarding 200: if we assume that most client would not bother setting
rack.id at all and affinity can be determined w/o rack.id via TCP header,
plus rack.id may not be "future-proof" additional information is needed as
well, then do we still need to change the protocol of metadata reque
Hi, Jason,
Thanks for the KIP. Just a couple of more comments.
200. I am wondering if we really need the replica.selection.policy config
in the consumer. A slight variant is that we (1) let the consumer always
fetch from the PreferredReplica and (2) provide a default implementation of
ReplicaSele
It's going to change quite a few things for learners, but this is an
awesome idea!
+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:35 PM Viktor Somogyi-Vass
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) very good proposal.
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 7:19 PM David Arthur wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Thanks, Jason!
> >
> > O
+1 (non-binding) very good proposal.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 7:19 PM David Arthur wrote:
> +1
>
> Thanks, Jason!
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:23 PM Eno Thereska
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> > Thanks for updating the KIP and addressing my previous comments.
> >
> > Eno
> >
> > On Mon, Mar
+1
Thanks, Jason!
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:23 PM Eno Thereska wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
> Thanks for updating the KIP and addressing my previous comments.
>
> Eno
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 4:35 PM Ryanne Dolan
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > Great stuff, thanks.
> >
> > Ryanne
> >
>
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks for updating the KIP and addressing my previous comments.
Eno
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 4:35 PM Ryanne Dolan wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Great stuff, thanks.
>
> Ryanne
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 11:08 AM Jason Gustafson wrote:
>
> > Hi All, discussion on the KIP seems t
+1 (binding). A very well written proposal and a pleasant read. Thanks
Jason!
Guozhang
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 9:07 AM Jason Gustafson wrote:
> Hi All, discussion on the KIP seems to have died down, so I'd like to go
> ahead and start a vote. Here is a link to the KIP:
>
> https://cwiki.apache
+1 (non-binding)
Great stuff, thanks.
Ryanne
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 11:08 AM Jason Gustafson wrote:
> Hi All, discussion on the KIP seems to have died down, so I'd like to go
> ahead and start a vote. Here is a link to the KIP:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-392%3A+Al
Hi All, discussion on the KIP seems to have died down, so I'd like to go
ahead and start a vote. Here is a link to the KIP:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-392%3A+Allow+consumers+to+fetch+from+closest+replica
.
+1 from me (duh)
-Jason
16 matches
Mail list logo
