Greetings to the Kafka Community!
I'm a newbie in Kafka and only recently went beyond a local installation
described in the Quickstart. I have faced a weird issue that I can't
explain.
I want to deploy on two machines:
- Machine #1 runs ZooKeeper and a single Kafka broker. I use default
configura
Apparently the issue is the fact that client tries to fetch more bytes than
network can handle in response timeout (request.timeout.ms client property), So
in my case request could not finish in 30 seconds, gets cancelled an reissued.
An it fail again and agian. So either lowering max.partion.f
> Could the `max.in.flight.requests.per.connection=1` parameter help to
> prevent the "slightly out-of-order records"?
Yes that helps, but dupes are still possible when MM2 restarts or
rebalances, since it will restart at the latest commit. If you are
replicating something like CDC or changelogs,
Hello Ben,
First of all, just to clarify your versioning should be (4.5.0 -> 2.5.0)
and (4.3.1 -> 2.3.1) etc, right? Currently Apache Kafka's latest release is
2.5.0.
The RebalanceInProgressException is only introduced in the most recent
releases (2.5.0+), previously it is only used internally an
Hey Ryanne,
Is there any documentation where I can read more about this "slightly
out-of-order records"?
It would help very much to see how we can use MM2 in our systems.
Thanks,
Peter
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 08:56, Péter Sinóros-Szabó <
peter.sinoros-sz...@transferwise.com> wrote:
> Hey Ryanna,
Hi,
I am having a hard time understanding why a Consumer#commitSync can
randomly fail.
Not being able to commit creates duplicates, which I can understand in
failure cases:
- the poll interval is not respected max.poll.interval.ms (300s)
- a consumer is stuck or die -> no heart beat during sess
came across this: seems to be the one
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-8710
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:17 PM Pushkar Deole wrote:
> Thanks... can you point to those improvements/bugs that are fixed in 2.5?
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 1:03 AM Matthias J. Sax wrote:
>
>> Well, what you
