Hi,

On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 12:43, Chikulal C <chikula...@rcggs.com> wrote:

>
>    1. Turned off node1 and node 2 (expected vs. actual)
>    1. expected: Message publish failure with following warnings ( in
>       producer )
>       1. Connection to node 0 could not be established. Broker may not be
>          available.
>          Connection to node 1 could not be established. Broker may not be
>          available.
>          2. actual: The same
>       2. Turned on node 1
>    1. expected: No warnings and should  publish data to topic
>       2. actual: The same
>
>  At this stage, what can you see regarding your topic partitions - who is
leader/follower?

>
>    1.
>    1. Turned off node 1
>       1. expected: Message failure with following warnings
>          1. Connection to node 0 could not be established. Broker may not
>          be available.
>          Connection to node 1 could not be established. Broker may not be
>          available.
>          2. actual: Message failure with only one type of warning ( It
>       should warn me that both nodes are down )
>       1. Connection to node 0 could not be established. Broker may not be
>          available.
>
>  Why do you think this is wrong? You have turned off the same node that
you turned back on? Or, am I missing something here?

>
>    1.
>       1. Turned on node 2
>    1. expected: No warnings and should  publish data to topic
>       2. actual: Message failure with only one type of warning
>          1. Connection to node 0 could not be established. Broker may not
>          be available.
>
>
>  See my previous comments. I think you may have either misconfigured one
of your tests, or have not explained the steps correctly. See my
highlighted text above

>
>    1.
>
>
> Here when you turn on node 2 in step 4, I would like to have my cluster
> up, since one of the broker is up. But it is not happening.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* M. Manna <manme...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 13 February 2020 17:55
> *To:* Chikulal C <chikula...@rcggs.com>
> *Cc:* Kafka Users <users@kafka.apache.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Kafka clustering issue
>
> My apologies as I misread one of the steps you mentioned in your original
> email.
>
> Could you kindly mention what you are seeing as per your order of failover
> tests?
>
>   1.   Turned off node1 and node 2 (expected vs. actual)
>   2.   Turned on node 1 (expected vs actual)
>   3.   Turned off node 1 (expected vs actual)
>   4.   Turned on node 2  (expected vs actual)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 12:06, Chikulal C <chikula...@rcggs.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I tried setting transaction.state.log.min.isr=1. But the issue still
> exists.
>
>
> I am also getting one warning after doing step 3 (with
> transaction.ate.log.min.isr=1) and producing some data on the topic as
> given below.
>
>
> [Producer clientId=producer-1] 2 partitions have leader brokers without a
> matching listener, including [topic2-0, topic2-1]
>
>
> But I was not facing this issue when transaction.state.log.min.isr was 2.
> This warning also leads to failure from the producer side to put data on
> the topic.
>
>
> Are there any other things I have to check?
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* M. Manna <manme...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 13 February 2020 16:35
> *To:* Kafka Users <users@kafka.apache.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Kafka clustering issue
>
> This could be because you have set your transaction.ate.log.min.isr=2. Have
> you tried with setting this to 1?
>
> Also, please note that if your min.insync.replica=1, and you only have 2
> nodes, you would only have a guarantee from 1 brokers to have the messages
> - but if the same broker fails then you may see issues.
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 10:40, Chikulal C <chikula...@rcggs.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am facing an issue with the Kafka clustering setup that I have. I have
> a
> > Kafka cluster with two broker that are connected to two zookeepers. I am
> > posting data to a topic that have replication factor and partition two
> each
> > with a spring boot Kafka producer and consuming the same with another
> > spring boot app.
> >
> > I found one strange behavior when testing the cluster in the following
> > manner -
> >
> >   1.   Turned off node1 and node 2
> >   2.   Turned on node 1
> >   3.   Turned off node 1
> >   4.   Turned on node 2
> >
> > After turning on node 2 Kafka cluster got failed and I am not able to
> > produce data to Kafka. My consumer started throwing the message
> > continuously as given below.
> >
> >  [Producer clientId=producer-1] Connection to node 1 (/server1-ip:9092)
> > could not be established. Broker may not be available.
> >
> > Issue is visible in both nodes. But if I kept both system up for a while
> > issue will get resolved and I can turn off any of the node without
> breaking
> > the cluster.
> > My broker configuration is as below.
> >
> > broker.id=0
> > listeners=PLAINTEXT://server1-ip:9092
> > advertised.listeners=PLAINTEXT://serever1-ip:9092
> > num.network.threads=3
> > num.io.threads=8
> > socket.send.buffer.bytes=102400
> > socket.receive.buffer.bytes=102400
> > socket.request.max.bytes=104857600
> > log.dirs=/home/user/kafka/data/kafka-logs
> > num.partitions=1
> > num.recovery.threads.per.data.dir=2
> > offsets.topic.replication.factor=2
> > transaction.state.log.replication.factor=2
> > transaction.state.log.min.isr=2
> > log.retention.hours=168
> > log.segment.bytes=1073741824
> > log.retention.check.interval.ms=300000
> > zookeeper.connect=serever1-ip:2181,serever2-ip:2181
> > zookeeper.connection.timeout.ms=6000
> > group.initial.rebalance.delay.ms=3000
> > auto.leader.rebalance.enable=true
> > leader.imbalance.check.interval.seconds=5
> >
> > Zookeeper configuration
> >
> > dataDir=/home/user/kafka/data
> > clientPort=2181
> > maxClientCnxns=0
> > initLimit=10
> > syncLimit=5
> > tickTime=2000
> > server.1=server1-ip:2888:3888
> > server.2=server2-ip:2888:3888
> >
> > Is this is an expected behavior of Kafka or am I doing something wrong
> > with this configuration ?
> >
> > Can somebody help me with this issue ..
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Reply via email to