Just to provide a bit more detail, I noticed Peter's pattern:
"Rebalance failed. org.apache.kafka.common.errors.DisconnectException: null"
"(Re-)joining group"

But I also get a different pattern, interchangeably:
Group coordinator broker-1:9092 (id: 2147483646 rack: null) is unavailable
or invalid due to cause: null.isDisconnected: true. Rediscovery will be
attempted.
Followed by
Discovered group coordinator broker-1:9092 (id: 2147483646 rack: null)



On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 09:59, Murilo Tavares <murilo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
> I got the same behaviour yesterday while trying to upgrade my KafkaStreams
> app from 2.4.1 to 2.7.0. Our brokers are on 2.2.1.
>
> Looking at KAFKA-9752 it mentions the cause being two other tickets:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7610
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-9232
>
> Although the first ticket seems fixed in 2.2.0, the latter was just fixed
> in 2.2.3, so my brokers shouldn't have the code for KAFKA-9232.
> But what I don't understand is that KAFKA-9752 says:
> "Note that this is only possible if 1) we have a consumer using an old
> JoinGroup version, 2) the consumer times out and disconnects from its
> initial JoinGroup request."
> In this case, I guess my consumer is not using an old JoinGroup, as my
> consumers (KafkaStreams) are on 2.7.0...
>
> Thanks
> Murilo
>
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 06:06, Péter Sinóros-Szabó
> <peter.sinoros-sz...@transferwise.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Hey Sophie,
>>
>> thanks for the link, I was checking that ticket, but I was not sure if it
>> is relevant for our case.
>> Eventually we "fixed" our problem with reducing the session.timeout.ms
>> (it
>> was set to a high value for other reasons).
>>
>> But today, in another service, we faced the same problem when upgrading
>> the
>> Kafka Client from 2.5.1 to 2.6.1. We are still using 2.4.1 on the brokers.
>> Do you think the same problem (KAFKA-9752) might cause this problem too?
>> It's hard to judge just based on the description of that ticket.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Peter
>>
>

Reply via email to