Sorry for missing the information.
Before I upgrade the prom client, pulsar metrics is
```
- pulsar_connection_closed_total_count
- pulsar_connection_created_total_count
- pulsar_source_received_total_1min
- system_exceptions_total_1min
```
After
```
- pulsar_connection_closed_total_count_t
+1 (binding)
Verified the following context.
1. Checked the checksum and licenses
2. Build from the source code successfully
3. Start standalone and run pulsar-perf with produce and consume
4. Checked the Pulsar function and stateful functions
5. Run Pulsar with KOP and publish and consume success
massakam commented on issue #191:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-node/issues/191#issuecomment-1032358001
@Matt-Esch Could you provide the code to reproduce this issue? And how often
does this issue occur?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To resp
Penghui, Gao,
see my comments below please
Il giorno mar 8 feb 2022 alle ore 09:16 Hang Chen
ha scritto:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Verified the following context.
> 1. Checked the checksum and licenses
> 2. Build from the source code successfully
> 3. Start standalone and run pulsar-perf with produce
> This is supposed to mean that the namespace should be able to be
> deleted, correct?
Yes, the main background is the user doesn’t have an active topic. so, they
want to delete the namespace.
> However, I think
> we might still have a race condition that could make tenant or
> namespace deletio
Hi everyone,
I'd like to open a discussion on PIP 141 : Pulsar BOM
The PIP is here : https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/14168
## Motivation
When designing NAR modules loaded by Nifi in the broker such as protocol
handlers, proxy extensions, Pulsar IO connectors, etc..., it's important
that
elangelo commented on pull request #225:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/pull/225#issuecomment-1032828708
> Thanks for the PR. Would it be possible to use the key
`pulsar_metadata.nodeSelector` instead of `initialize_jobs.nodeSelector`?
Please also add a placeholder in th
pellicano commented on pull request #205:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/pull/205#issuecomment-1032999802
Any news here, @michaeljmarshall?
@sijie if you may please take a look. We appreciate. Thank you.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
T
jinoyparekh opened a new pull request #442:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-manager/pull/442
*(If this PR fixes a github issue, please add `Fixes #`.)*
Fixes #
*(or if this PR is one task of a github issue, please add `Master Issue:
#` to link to the master issue.)*
Hello,
A while back during one of the community meetings we talked about
pulsar-adapters repo not getting enough love - being missed during the
releases, not keeping up with the pulsar changes etc.
One of the ideas (from Sijie, as I recall) was to donate the adapters to
other communities that have
>> How do we designate the host broker? Is it manual? How does it work when
the host broker is removed from the cluster?
No, it will not be manual but as I explained earlier a broker which has a
failover consumer to consume remote events will be the publisher for
metadata update. If that broker is
jamesvsshark commented on issue #283:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-manager/issues/283#issuecomment-1033264016
Using `http://pulsar:8080` as the service url works for me.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHu
tuteng merged pull request #440:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-manager/pull/440
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubs
tuteng commented on a change in pull request #442:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-manager/pull/442#discussion_r802223026
##
File path: .github/workflows/gradle.yml
##
@@ -1,23 +1,30 @@
-name: Java CI
+ name: Java CI
-on:
- push:
-branches:
- - master
- pull
Hi enrico,
There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for all of
them to be completed
Please move them to 2.9.3 and don't block the 2.9.2 release.
And https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097 also in the discussion
stage,
We should keep calm at this time, no need to hurry to
I am -0 for this release because of the transaction regression,
assuming it is as bad as Enrico described. I don't know enough about
the transaction feature's stability to give a "-1".
> There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for all of
> them to be completed
Does this mean
16 matches
Mail list logo
