which can deployed in mesos
or container orchestrations. If possible can you document in the rejected
alternatives what are missing parts that made you to consider a new design from
ground up.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, at 8:34 AM, Ryanne Dolan wrote:
> Jan, these are two separ
Congrats Mani!! Very well deserved.
--Harsha
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, at 5:20 PM, Attila Sasvari wrote:
> Congratulations Manikumar! Keep up the good work.
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:30 AM Jungtaek Lim wrote:
>
> > Congrats Mani!
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 1
Hi,
Thanks for the KIP. Curious to understand why the ChannelBuilder
interface doesn't solve the stated reasons in Motiviation section.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, at 12:10 PM, Pellerin, Clement wrote:
> I would like feedback on this proposal to make it possible to
You can download from here https://kafka.apache.org/downloads/
https://archive.apache.org/dist/kafka/1.1.0/kafka_2.12-1.1.0.tgz
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018, at 2:12 PM, David Glasser wrote:
> It looks like 1.1.0 is no longer available at
> https://www.apache.org/dist/kafka/
>
> Is this intentional? While
listed in the config are allowed to impersonate other users.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018, at 3:58 AM, Manikumar wrote:
> Bump up! to get some attention.
>
> BTW, recently Apache Spark added support for Kafka delegation token.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse
roll their own based on their infra and support File as the default mechanism
so that we can support existing users.
-Harsha
On Sat, Dec 8, 2018, at 7:03 AM, Noa Resare wrote:
>
>
> > On 6 Dec 2018, at 20:16, Rajini Sivaram wrote:
> >
> > Hi Noa,
> >
>
+1 . Thanks for the KIP. This is very much needed.
-Harsha
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, at 11:00 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> +1. Thanks Boyang!
>
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:29 AM Jason Gustafson wrote:
>
> > +1 Thanks for the KIP, Boyang!
> >
> &
es through , allowing users to choose that ceiling would
be beneficial. Can you add any details on why 20 is sufficient , with default
num.network.threads with 3 if one broker is getting more than 60 simultaneous
connections this would result in perceived slower responses from client side
right?
Than
Thanks for the details Rajini. It would be great if you can add a few details
to the KIP, on how many connections you are able to handle in your cluster with
number 20 to give some context.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018, at 10:22 AM, Rajini Sivaram wrote:
> Hi Harsha,
>
> T
Hi,
It might have slipped through. You can try calling out VOTE again on the
KIP.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018, at 12:19 PM, Pellerin, Clement wrote:
> I called a vote on KIP-383 more than 72h ago but it attracted no votes
> and no comments.
> The rule requires lazy major
Overall LGTM. +1.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018, at 12:52 PM, Pellerin, Clement wrote:
> So far, there are no votes on this KIP. Please help me fix KAFKA-6654 by
> voting for this fix.
> Improvement comments are also welcome.
>
> -Original Message-
> From:
Yes. +1 binding.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018, at 5:21 AM, Pellerin, Clement wrote:
> I'm new here. Is this vote binding or not?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Harsha [mailto:ka...@harsha.io]
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2018 1:59 PM
> To: dev@kafka.a
Damian,
This is the VOTE thread. There is a DISCUSS thread which
concluded in it.
-Harsha
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018, at 5:04 AM, Pellerin, Clement wrote:
> I did that and nobody came.
> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@kafka.apache.org:lte=1M:kip-383
> I don't
+1 (binding). Nice work Ryan.
-Harsha
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018, at 8:14 AM, Andrew Schofield wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Andrew Schofield
> IBM Event Streams
>
> On 21/12/2018, 01:23, "Srinivas Reddy" wrote:
>
> +1 (non binding)
>
> Thank
+1 (binding).
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Boyang Chen wrote:
> Thanks Jason for the comment! I answered it on the discuss thread.
>
> Folks, could we continue the vote for this KIP? This is a very critical
> improvement for our streaming system
> stability
HI All,
We are looking forward to this KIP. Appreciate if others can take a
look at the kip and
vote on this thread.
Thanks
Harsha
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018, at 4:41 AM, Damian Guy wrote:
> must be my gmail playing up. This appears to be the DISCUSS thread to me...
> e
> On Thu, 20
including this KIP in 2.2? If not, I
> will start voting later this week.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rajini
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:13 PM Rajini Sivaram
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Harsha,
> >
> > I am not sure if we have numbers for connection bursts. But since we ha
+1 (binding).
Thanks,
Harsha
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, at 3:38 PM, Rajini Sivaram wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to start vote on KIP-402 to improve fairness in channel
> processing in SocketServer to protect brokers from connection storms and
> limit the total number of connect
Congrats!!
-Harsha
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, at 4:00 PM, Mayuresh Gharat wrote:
> congrats !!
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 3:42 PM Matthias J. Sax
> wrote:
>
> > Congrats!
> >
> > On 1/15/19 3:34 PM, Boyang Chen wrote:
> > > This is exciting
+1
-Harsha
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, at 5:15 AM, Thomas Crayford wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Lucas Wang wrote:
>
> > Hi Jun, Ismael,
> >
> > Can you please take a look when you get a chance? Thanks!
> >
> > Lucas
>
.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Fri, Jun 22nd, 2018 at 11:35 AM Lucas Wang wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Eno,
>
> Sorry for the delayed response.
> - I haven't implemented the feature yet, so no experimental results so
> far.
> And I plan to test in out in the following days.
This is very useful. LGTM.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Mon, Jun 25th, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Dong Lin wrote:
>
>
>
> Hey Manikumar,
>
> Thanks much for the KIP. It looks pretty good.
>
> Thanks,
> Dong
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:38 PM, Manikumar < manikumar.re..
Thanks for the pointer. Will take a look might suit our requirements better.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Mon, Jun 25th, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Lucas Wang wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Harsha,
>
> If I understand correctly, the replication quota mechanism proposed in
> KIP-73 can be helpful in
+1 (binding)
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Jun 27th, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Damian Guy wrote:
>
>
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 at 18:50 Bill Bejeck < bbej...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > -Bill
> >
+1.
1) Ran unit tests
2) 3 node cluster , tested basic operations.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Mon, Jul 2nd, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Jun Rao wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi, Matthias,
>
> Thanks for the running the release. Verified quickstart on scala 2.12
> binary. +1
>
> Jun
>
&
+1.
1) Ran unit tests
2) 3 node cluster , tested basic operations.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Mon, Jul 2nd, 2018 at 11:13 AM, "Vahid S Hashemian"
wrote:
>
>
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Built from source and ran quickstart successfully on Ubuntu (with Java 8).
>
+1.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Tue, Jul 3rd, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Ted Yu wrote:
>
>
>
> +1
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Mickael Maison < mickael.mai...@gmail.com >
>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non binding)
> > Thanks for the KIP
> >
&g
+1.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Fri, Jun 1st, 2018 at 10:21 AM, "Vahid S Hashemian"
wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm bumping this vote thread up as the KIP requires only one binding +1 to
>
> pass.
> The KIP is very similar in nature to the recently approved KIP-277 (
&
+1.
* Ran unit tests
* Installed in a cluster and ran simple tests
Thanks,
Harsha
On Mon, Jul 9th, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Ted Yu wrote:
>
>
>
> +1
>
> Ran test suite.
>
> Checked signatures.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 3:36 PM Dong Lin < lindon..
+1
1. Ran unit tests
2. Tested few use cases through 3-node cluster.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, at 9:33 AM, Mickael Maison wrote:
> +1 non-binding
> Built from source, ran tests, ran quickstart and check signatures
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1
Very useful. LGTM.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, at 9:56 AM, Manikumar wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have created a KIP to add describe all topics API to AdminClient .
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-327%3A+Add+describe+all+topics+API+to+AdminClient
>
+1.
1. Ran unit tests
2. Ran 3 node cluster to run few tests.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, at 7:29 AM, Manikumar wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) Ran tests, Verified quick start, producer/consumer perf
> tests
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM Brett Rann
>
+1
Ran tests
Ran a 3 node cluster to test basic operations.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018, at 9:04 AM, Ted Yu wrote:
> +1
>
> Ran test suite - passed (apart from testMetricsLeak which is flaky).
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Damian Guy wrote:
>
> > Thanks
+1 (binding)
Thanks,
Harsha
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018, at 10:22 AM, Manikumar wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Thanks for the KIP.
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 10:42 PM Ray Chiang wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > -Ray
> >
> > On 8/7/18 9:26 AM,
+1 (binding)
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018, at 9:15 AM, Manikumar wrote:
> Hi Viktor,
> We already have a method in Authorizer interface to get acls for a given
> principal.
> We will use this method to fetch acls and filter the results for requested
> Resources.
> Aut
+1 (binding)
-Harsha
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018, at 12:46 PM, Jakub Scholz wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 6:24 PM Manikumar wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I would like to start voting on KIP-357 which allows to list ACLs per
> > princ
+1.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018, at 4:19 AM, Attila Sasvári wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP and the updates Viktor!
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:44 AM Manikumar
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > Thanks for the
+1 (binding).
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018, at 4:56 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> Great contribution! +1
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Manikumar
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding).
> >
> > Thanks for the KIP.
> >
> > On Wed
+1 (Binding).
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018, at 9:06 PM, vito jeng wrote:
> +1
>
>
>
> ---
> Vito
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Dongjin Lee wrote:
>
> > +1. (Non-binding)
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:13 AM Matthias J. Sax
user's will extract
SubjectAltName to construct the identity I guess thats not going to supported
by this method.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018, at 8:25 AM, Manikumar wrote:
> Hi Rajini,
>
> I don't have strong reasons for rejecting Option 2. I just felt Option 1 is
>
Thanks. I am also leaning towards option 2, as it will help the consistency of
expressing such mapping between sasl and ssl.
-Harsha
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018, at 8:27 PM, Manikumar wrote:
> Hi Harsha,
>
> Thanks for the review. Yes, As mentioned on the motivation section, this is
&g
KIP looks good. +1 (binding)
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018, at 7:44 AM, Rajini Sivaram wrote:
> Hi Ron,
>
> Thanks for the KIP!
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Konstantin Chukhlomin
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non binding)
>
It looks like you are trying to connect to SASL Kafka broker? If that's
the case make sure you follow the
dochttp://kafka.apache.org/documentation.html#security_jaas_client
to pass in JAAS config with the KafkaClient section to your
consumer. -Harsha
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018, at 8:31 AM, Srav
Hi Rajini,
Since you helped review the KIP if you don't mind can you vote on
this KIP.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 8:05 AM, Harsha wrote:
> HI All,
> We are looking forward to this KIP. Appreciate if others can
> take a look at the kip and
> vo
Hi All,
We are interested in adding tiered storage to Kafka. More details
about motivation and design are in the KIP. We are working towards an initial
POC. Any feedback or questions on this KIP are welcome.
Thanks,
Harsha
We are leaving the details of
loading segments to RLM read part instead of directly exposing this in the
Broker. This way we can keep the current Kafka code as it is without changing
the assumptions around the local disk. Let the RLM handle the remote storage
part.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Mon, Feb
Thanks Eno, Adam & Satish for you review and questions. I'll address these in
KIP and update the thread here.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, at 7:09 AM, Satish Duggana wrote:
> Thanks, Harsha for the KIP. It is a good start for tiered storage in
> Kafka. I have a few com
+1 (binding).
Thanks,
Harsha
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019, at 7:53 AM, Andrew Schofield wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP.
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On 18/02/2019, 12:48, "Stanislav Kozlovski" wrote:
>
> Hey everybody, I'm starting a VOTE thread for KIP-412. Thi
+1 (binding).
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019, at 2:49 AM, Satish Duggana wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP, +1 (non-binding)
>
> ~Satish.
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 3:58 PM Rajini Sivaram
> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to start vote on KIP-430 to optionally ob
Thanks George. LGTM.
Jun & Tom, Can you please take a look at the updated KIP.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, at 12:18 PM, George Li wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After discussing with Tom, Harsha and I are picking up KIP-236
> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/displ
,
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 l
27;s dynamic
config as mentioned in approach 1.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019, at 6:21 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP. Have we considered the existing topic config that makes
> it possible to disallow down conversions? That's the biggest downside in
> allowing olde
, like turning off
certain features which might be in interest to the service providers.
One drawback, It will introduce another call to check instead of centralizing
everything around Authorizer.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019, at 2:43 PM, Ying Zheng wrote:
> If you guys don't
mple. My
proposal in the previous thread was to introduce another module/interface,
let's say
"SupportedAPIs" which will take in dynamic configuration to check which APIs
are allowed.
It can throw UnsupportedException just like we are throwing Authorization
Exception.
Thanks
Thanks for the KIP Kan. I think the design will be simpler if we just
deprecate storing broker.id in meta.properties and start storing it in
zookeeper as you suggested.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019, at 2:40 PM, Li Kan wrote:
> My bad, forgot to put the link to the KIP:
>
by keeping the existing hostname easier.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, at 11:53 AM, Colin McCabe wrote:
> Hi Li,
>
> > The mechanism simplifies deployment because the same configuration can be
> > used across all brokers, however, in a large system where disk failu
HI Colin,
Overlooked the IDEMPOTENT_WRITE ACL. This along with
client.min.version should solve the cases proposed in the KIP.
Can we turn this KIP into adding min.client.version config to broker and it
could be part of the dynamic config .
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, at 12
2 replicas are down and we are at 2 alive replicas this is stop
everything to restore the cluster to a good state.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, at 11:17 PM, Dong Lin wrote:
> Hey Kevin,
>
> Thanks for the update.
>
> The KIP suggests that AtMinIsr is better than Un
ost. This would reduce
the reassignment step and allow us to just copy the data and start the new node
with the previous broker.id
which is what the KIP is proposing.
I want to understand what are your concerns in moving this mapping which
already exists on disk to zookeeper?
Thanks,
Harsha
On F
rstand the
concerns about a broker.id host mapping being available in zookeeper. Broker
id belongs to Kafka and not in control pane.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019, at 3:50 AM, Eno Thereska wrote:
> Hi Harsha, Li Kan,
>
> What Colin mentioned is what I see in practice as well (at AWS
+1 (binding)
Thanks,
Harsha
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019, at 2:55 AM, Dongjin Lee wrote:
> +1 (non binding)
>
> 2 bindings, 3 non-bindings until now. (Colin, Manikumar / Satish, Mickael,
> Dongjin)
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 7:44 PM Mickael Maison
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non
+1 (binding)
-Harsha
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019, at 6:48 PM, hacker win7 wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> > On Mar 8, 2019, at 02:32, Stanislav Kozlovski
> > wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the KIP, Kevin! This change will be a good improvement to
> > Kafka's obs
+1 (non-bidning)
- Download artifacts, setup 3 node cluster
- Ran producer/consumer clients
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019, at 5:54 AM, Andrew Schofield wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> - Downloaded the artifacts
> - Ran Kafka Connect connectors
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
Hi All,
Thanks for your initial feedback. We updated the KIP. Please take a
look and let us know if you have any questions.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-405%3A+Kafka+Tiered+Storage
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, at 10:30 AM, Harsha wrote:
> Thanks
ould like all of this code to be part of Apache Kafka . In early days of
Kafka, there is external module which used to contain kafka to hdfs copy tools
and dependencies. We would like to have RLM (class implementation) and
RSM(interface) to be in core and as you suggested, implementation of R
failover in a
broker causes bigger than usual churn in the consumers? (I'm thinking about
the time required to rebuild remote index files.)"
Rebuild remote index files will only happen in case of remote storage missing
all the copied index files. Fail-over will not trigger this rebuild
Looks like the KIP is passed with 3 binding votes. From Matthias, Bill Bejeck
and myself you got 3 binding votes.
You can do the full tally of the votes and send out a close of vote thread.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, at 12:24 PM, M. Manna wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Trying to re
the remote storage might help in terms of
efficiency but this requires Protocol changes and some way of syncing ACLs in
Kafka to the Remote storage.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019, at 8:48 AM, Ron Dagostino wrote:
> Hi Harsha. A couple of questions. I think I know the answers, but it
&g
hink we should also return in the error message that the
broker only supports min.api.version and above. So that users can see a clear
message and upgrade to a newer version.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019, at 12:19 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Hi Ying,
>
> The actual reasons are importa
minor release and it will be harder for users to figure out which
release of sarama client they can use.
Ying, if you have a different apporach which might address this issue please
add.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019, at 7:23 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Hi Harsha,
>
> There is no
Thanks Ying for updating the KIP.
Hi Ismael,
Given min.api.version allows admin/users to specifiy min.version
for each request this should address your concerns right?
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Ying Zheng wrote:
> I have updated the config description in
Hi Gwen & Ismael,
Do you have any feedback on with the proposed approach,
min.api.version allowing users to specify versions for every request.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 10:24 AM, Harsha wrote:
> Thanks Ying for updating the KIP.
>
Thanks for the kip. LGTM +1.
-Harsha
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019, at 8:14 AM, Viktor Somogyi-Vass wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> I too agree this is more of a problem in older versions and therefore we
> could backport it. Were you thinking of any specific versions? I guess the
> 2.x and 1
+1 (binding). Thanks for the KIP looking forward for this to be avaiable in
consumers.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, May 22, 2019, at 12:24 AM, Liquan Pei wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:34 PM Boyang Chen wrote:
>
> > Thank you Guozhang for all the har
.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019, at 9:40 PM, Carlos Manuel Duclos-Vergara wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for the answer. Looking at high water mark, then the logic would be
> to flag the partitions that have
>
> high_watermark == log_start_offset
>
> In addition, I'm think
KeyManagerFactory,
TrustManagerFactory and add that your JVM settings and pass that factory name
via configs exposed in KAFKA-8191. These are Java APIs and instead of adding
custom apis like you are proposing in the KIP.
-Harsha
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Maulin Vasavada wrote:
> Bump!
You can look at the implementation here for an example
https://github.com/spiffe/spiffe-example/blob/master/java-spiffe/spiffe-security-provider/src/main/java/spiffe/api/provider/SpiffeProvider.java
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019, at 9:00 PM, Harsha wrote:
> Hi Maulin,
>This
Thanks for the KIP Sandeep. LGTM.
Mani & Rajini, can you please look at the KIP as well.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019, at 2:54 PM, Sandeep Mopuri wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions, made changes accordingly.
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 9:27 AM Satish Duggana
> wrote:
&
Thanks for the details.
Rajini, Can you please take a look and let us know if these addresses your
concerns.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019, at 9:36 AM, Sandeep Mopuri wrote:
> Hi Rajini,
> Thanks for raising the above questions. Please find the
> replies below
&g
will not trigger any
deletion of local segments.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019, at 6:01 AM, Habib Nahas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Under the proposed definition of RemoteTier, would it be possible to
> have an implementation that transfers older log segments to a slower
> storage tie
there is a usecase where we benefit from having a provider config for
SASL.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019, at 5:25 AM, Rajini Sivaram wrote:
> Hi Sandeep/Harsha,
>
> I don't have any major concerns about this KIP since it solves a specific
> issue and is a relatively minor change. I a
Hi Colin,
Looks like KIP is missing the images , links are broken.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Colin McCabe wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've written a KIP about removing ZooKeeper from Kafka. Please take a
> look and let me know what you
+1 for the KIP.
-Harsha
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, at 3:07 PM, Colin McCabe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019, at 05:26, Mitchell wrote:
> > Hi Jason,
> > Thanks for looking at this!
> >
> > I wasn't exactly sure what to put in the compatibility section. I wrote
>
Hi All,
Can we have a KIP meeting around this. The KIP is up for
sometime and if there are any questions lets quickly hash out
details.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, May 19, 2016, at 08:40 AM, parth brahmbhatt wrote:
> That is what the hadoop echo system uses so
+1 . Ran a 3-node cluster with few system tests on our side. Looks good.
-Harsha
On Thu, May 19, 2016, at 07:47 PM, Jun Rao wrote:
> Thanks for running the release. +1 from me. Verified the quickstart.
>
> Jun
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
>
>
o be
better even though it breaks the interface.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Fri, May 20, 2016, at 05:00 PM, Mayuresh Gharat wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I came across an issue with plugging in a custom PrincipalBuilder class
> using the config "principal.builder.class" along with a custom Au
Manikumar,
Any reason for this. Before the workflow is to open
a new JIRA if a JIRA closed.
-Harsha
On Fri, May 20, 2016, at 08:54 PM, Manikumar Reddy wrote:
> Jun/Ismail,
>
> I requested Apache Infra to change JIRA workflow to add Closed -&
Mayuresh & Ismael,
Agree on not breaking interfaces on public API.
+1 on option 2.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Mon, May 23, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Mayuresh Gharat wrote:
> Hi Harsha and Ismael,
>
> Option 2 sounds like a good idea if we want to ma
Jun & Ismael,
Unfortunately I couldn't attend the KIP meeting
when delegation tokens discussed. Appreciate if
you can update the thread if you have any
further questions.
Thanks,
Harsha
On
Rajini,
How does sub-quotas works in case of authenticated users.
Where are we maintaining the relation between users and their
client Ids. Can you add an example of zk data under /users.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016, at 05:01 AM, Rajini Sivaram wrote:
>
+1 (binding)
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016, at 05:46 PM, Henry Cai wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Guozhang Wang
> > wrote:
> >
> > > ＋1.
+1 (binding)
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016, at 04:15 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> +1.
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Grant Henke wrote:
> >
> > > I would lik
+1 (binding)
-Harsha
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016, at 11:33 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Dana Powers
> wrote:
>
> > +1 -- thanks for the update
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Grant Henke wrote:
> > >
producer doesn’t want
to provide client auth and just needs wire encryption there won’t be any
identity , in this case and we won’t be able to enforce an authorizer as the
client will be anonymous.
--
Harsha
On March 31, 2015 at 10:29:33 AM, Don Bosco Durai (bo...@apache.org) wrote:
>Rela
framework side than on the system tests but in evaluating
frameworks can we consider windows as another option too?.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, at 01:02 PM, Geoffrey Anderson wrote:
> Hi Gwen,
>
> Sorry about that, the ducttape repository was not yet public, but no
Gianmarco,
I am coming from storm community. I think PKG is a very
interesting and we can provide an implementation of Partitioner for PKG. Can
you open a JIRA for this.
--
Harsha
Sent with Airmail
On April 3, 2015 at 4:49:15 AM, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales
(g
se+a+Partitioner+interface+in+the+new+producer
. Let me know if you see anything missing.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015, at 02:15 AM, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Here are the questions I think we should consider:
> > 1. Do we need this at all
Thanks for the review Joel. I agree don't need a init method we can use
configure. I'll update the KIP.
-Harsha
On Wed, May 6, 2015, at 04:45 PM, Joel Koshy wrote:
> +1 with a minor comment: do we need an init method given it extends
> Configurable?
>
> Also, can you move t
+1 non-binding
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:18 AM -0700, "Parth Brahmbhatt"
wrote:
Hi,
Opening the voting thread for KIP-11.
Link to the KIP:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-11+-+Authorization+Interface
Link to Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFK
I don't see any failures in tests with the latest trunk or 0.8.2. I ran
it few times in a loop.
-Harsha
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015, at 08:38 AM, Manikumar Reddy wrote:
> ProducerFailureHandlingTest.testCannotSendToInternalTopic is failing on
> both 0.8.2 and trunk.
>
&g
1 - 100 of 294 matches
Mail list logo
