This also came up recently when Geoff and I were discussing KAFKA-2257,
which needs to add a timeout option to a tool that KAFKA-2276 is
introducing. For that timeout, the question is whether we should strive for
consistency (use ms), the unit that is most likely convenient (use s), or
finest granu
Cool. Yeah +1 on make it consistent.
Thanks,
Mayuresh
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Grant Henke wrote:
> They take precedence in order of granularity (ms > minutes > hours). Below
> is the relevant snippet of code.
>
> I vote for keeping all time related configs in milliseconds and deprecat
They take precedence in order of granularity (ms > minutes > hours). Below
is the relevant snippet of code.
I vote for keeping all time related configs in milliseconds and deprecating
the others. It gives you the most control in a single config. The minutes
and hours ones offer no new functionalit
Hmm.
This creates confusion for people who might be new to kafka or have never
used those properties.
Does deprecating the older ones make sense here?
Thanks,
Mayuresh
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> Agree. All I found on this was KAFKA-1325, which is more about
> incon
Oh ok.
Is there a plan that we should deprecate the older ones. This is because as
I said some users might misconfigure it like by using both the
log.retention.ms" and "log.retention.minutes" by mistake.
We can probably set a warning that only one of this should be used.
Also looking at the KafkaC
Agree. All I found on this was KAFKA-1325, which is more about
inconsistency than real use-case.
Anyway, I'd argue that if we added it in 0.8.2.0, we can't take it out now :)
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Aditya Auradkar
wrote:
> Is there actually a use case where we need "log.retention.ms"?
Is there actually a use case where we need "log.retention.ms"? In most
cases, people would want to retain their logs for at least a few minutes
I'd think.
Aditya
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> Backward compatibility, I think.
>
> At least the "ms" one is fairly new, and
Backward compatibility, I think.
At least the "ms" one is fairly new, and I think we left the others to
avoid break configuration during upgrade.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Mayuresh Gharat
wrote:
> I was thinking why we have 3 different configs for the same property (log
> retention) :
>
I was thinking why we have 3 different configs for the same property (log
retention) :
"log.retention.ms"
"log.retention.minutes"
"log.retention.hours"
Why don't we only use the Milliseconds?
There are other properties as well like log Jitter, LogRollTime which raise
the same question in my mind
