Thanks, makes sense. On Feb 8, 2013 4:00 PM, "Jun Rao" <jun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's right. If you are partitioning by key, that means you insist a > message has to go to a certain partition, whether it's available or not. > So, if a partition is not available, we will drop the message for the > partition in the async mode and consistently throw an exception to the > caller in the sync mode. > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Michal Haris <michal.ha...@visualdna.com > >wrote: > > > So if the produces are partitioning by key we have to have replication if > > we dont want messages to get lost when partition goes down l right ? > > Thanks > > On Feb 8, 2013 5:12 AM, "Jun Rao" <jun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > We have fixed this issue in 0.8. Withreplication factor 1, if the > > producer > > > doesn't care about partitioning by key, messages will be sent to > > partitions > > > that are currently available. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Michal Haris < > michal.ha...@visualdna.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Same here, summary was need as we have a fairly large ecosystem of > > > multiple > > > > 0.7.2 clusters and I am planning to test upgrade to 0.8. > > > > However, one thing creeping at the back of my mind regarding 0.8 is > > > > something i have spotted in one thread few weeks ago namely that the > > > > rebalance behaviour of producers is not as robust as in 0.7.x without > > > > replication and i remeber there was no designed solution at the time > - > > > any > > > > news here ? Basically our usecase doesn't require replication but > > logical > > > > offsets and some other things introduced would solve some problems. > > > > On Feb 7, 2013 7:11 PM, "Vaibhav Puranik" <vpura...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Same here. Thanks a lot Jun. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Vaibhav > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Felix GV <fe...@mate1inc.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Jun! > > > > > > > > > > > > I hadn't been following the discussions regarding 0.8 and > > replication > > > > > for a > > > > > > little while and this was a great post to refresh my memory and > get > > > up > > > > to > > > > > > speed on the current replication architecture's design. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Felix > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just posted the following blog on Kafka replication. This may > > > > answer > > > > > > some > > > > > > > of the questions that a few people have asked in the mailing > list > > > > > before. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://engineering.linkedin.com/kafka/intra-cluster-replication-apache-kafka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
