Re: PIP 36: Max message size

> > If we just let the broker/proxy decide the max size, then we can avoid > the configuration > in the client. That removes a lot of complexity in how to handle > situation when client max-size > is smaller than broker max-size and broker needs to deliver a message > to that consumer. > Thank you

Re: PIP 36: Max message size

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:52 AM Joe F wrote: > I think 5MB is too large and it should be reduced. :-) . I am with Kafka > on this one.. 1MB is good enough. It seems common to see a message larger than 5MB in MySQL cdc :( > > Have we completely ruled out a split/join abstraction on the Pulsa

Re: PIP 36: Max message size

> I think there should be more conditions specified in the PIP and we should > have a clear documentation on what the behavior will be and what kind of errors an application will see. Especially we should cover how this will interact with proxy. Just to clarify my thoughts here, I was thinking of

Re: PIP 36: Max message size

> I think 5MB is too large and it should be reduced. :-) . I am with Kafka on this one.. 1MB is good enough. It would be easy to configure in such way if broker advertises 1MB and client complies with it. -- Matteo Merli On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 12:52 PM Joe F wrote: > > I think 5MB is too lar

Re: Modifing Server ServiceConfiguration at runtime (at least BookKeeper replication parameters)

Il gio 9 mag 2019, 21:27 Matteo Merli ha scritto: > It’s available through REST and Admin Java API. > https://pulsar.apache.org/api/admin/ > > The call applies to all the topics for a namespace, but it’s not possible > to modify multiple namespaces in a single call. > It is clear. I will try. T

Re: PIP 36: Max message size

I think 5MB is too large and it should be reduced. :-) . I am with Kafka on this one.. 1MB is good enough. Have we completely ruled out a split/join abstraction on the Pulsar produce/consumer APIs? No backward compatibility, no client-server capability mismatches, now that we have dedup, split

Re: Modifing Server ServiceConfiguration at runtime (at least BookKeeper replication parameters)

It’s available through REST and Admin Java API. https://pulsar.apache.org/api/admin/ The call applies to all the topics for a namespace, but it’s not possible to modify multiple namespaces in a single call. On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 11:56 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Il gio 9 mag 2019, 18:44 Matteo

Re: Modifing Server ServiceConfiguration at runtime (at least BookKeeper replication parameters)

Il gio 9 mag 2019, 18:44 Matteo Merli ha scritto: > Hi Enrico, > > that's the default setting for the broker. You can also dynamically > override the setting for a particular namespace. > eg.: > > bin/pulsar-admin namespaces set-persistence \ > public/default \ >--bookkeeper

Re: PIP 36: Max message size

Thanks Yong for starting the work on this. I think there should be more conditions specified in the PIP and we should have a clear documentation on what the behavior will be and what kind of errors an application will see. Especially we should cover how this will interact with proxy. > On client

Re: Modifing Server ServiceConfiguration at runtime (at least BookKeeper replication parameters)

Hi Enrico, that's the default setting for the broker. You can also dynamically override the setting for a particular namespace. eg.: bin/pulsar-admin namespaces set-persistence \ public/default \ --bookkeeper-ensemble 3 \ --bookkeeper-write-quorum 3 \ --bookkeep

Slack digest for #dev - 2019-05-09

2019-05-08 11:15:17 UTC - Brian Doran: @Brian Doran has joined the channel 2019-05-08 11:18:58 UTC - Brian Doran: I am having an issue building pulsar master; is anyone else experiencing this? ` 2019-05-08 11:19:07 UTC - Brian Doran: ` [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.pl

Build failed in Jenkins: pulsar-website-build #625

See Changes: [sijie] pip28-v2 add unit test (#3915) [sijie] [pulsar-clients] Support nested struct for GenericRecord (#4177) [github] [pulsar-storm] provide auto-unsubscribe option in pulsar-spout (#4238) [