You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@kafka.apache.org by Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com> on 2020/02/06 16:56:52 UTC
Re: [VOTE] KIP-409: Allow creating under-replicated topics and partitions
I have not seen any new feedback nor votes.
Bumping this thread again
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:55 PM Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We are now at 4 non-binding votes but still no binding votes.
> I have not seen any outstanding questions in the DISCUSS thread. If
> you have any feedback, please let me know.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:03 PM M. Manna <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > MIckael,
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:01, Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Manna,
> > >
> > > In your example, the topic 'dummy' is not under replicated. It just
> > > has 1 replica. A topic under replicated is a topic with less ISRs than
> > > replicas.
> > >
> > > Having under replicated topics is relatively common in a Kafka
> > > cluster, it happens everytime is broker is down. However Kafka does
> > > not permit it to happen at topic creation. Currently at creation,
> > > Kafka requires to have at least as many brokers as the replication
> > > factor. This KIP addresses this limitation.
> > >
> > > Regarding your 2nd point. When rack awareness is enabled, Kafka tries
> > > to distribute partitions across racks. When all brokers in a rack are
> > > down (ie: a zone is offline), you can end up with partitions not well
> > > distributed even with rack awareness. There are currently no easy way
> > > to track such partitions so I decided to not attempt addressing this
> > > issue in this KIP.
> > >
> > > I hope that answers your questions.
> > >
> >
> > It does and I appreciate you taking time and explaining this.
> >
> > +1 (binding) if I haven't already.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Kamal Chandraprakash
> > > <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 (non-binding). Thanks for the KIP!
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 1:58 PM M. Manna <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Mikael,
> > > > >
> > > > > Apologies for last minute question, as I just caught up with it.
> > > Thanks for
> > > > > your work on the KIP.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just trying to get your thoughts on one thing (I might have
> > > misunderstood
> > > > > it) - currently it's possible (even though I am strongly against it) to
> > > > > create Kafka topics which are under-replicated; despite all brokers
> > > being
> > > > > online. This the the output of an intentionally under-replicated topic
> > > > > "dummy" with p=6 and RF=1 (with a 3 node cluster)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > virtualadmin@kafka-broker-machine-1:/opt/kafka/bin$ ./kafka-topics.sh
> > > > > --create --topic dummy --partitions 6 --replication-factor 1
> > > > > --bootstrap-server localhost:9092
> > > > > virtualadmin@kafka-broker-machine-1:/opt/kafka/bin$ ./kafka-topics.sh
> > > > > --describe --topic dummy --bootstrap-server localhost:9092
> > > > > Topic:dummy PartitionCount:6 ReplicationFactor:1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > Configs:compression.type=gzip,min.insync.replicas=2,cleanup.policy=delete,segment.bytes=10485760,max.message.bytes=10642642,retention.bytes=20971520
> > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 0 Leader: 3 Replicas: 3
> > > > > Isr: 3
> > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 1 Leader: 1 Replicas: 1
> > > > > Isr: 1
> > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 2 Leader: 2 Replicas: 2
> > > > > Isr: 2
> > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 3 Leader: 3 Replicas: 3
> > > > > Isr: 3
> > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 4 Leader: 1 Replicas: 1
> > > > > Isr: 1
> > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 5 Leader: 2 Replicas: 2
> > > > > Isr: 2
> > > > >
> > > > > This is with respect to the following statement on your KIP (i.e.
> > > > > under-replicated topic creation is also permitted when none is
> > > offline):
> > > > >
> > > > > *but note that this may already happen (without this KIP) when
> > > > > > topics/partitions are created while all brokers in a rack are offline
> > > > > (ie:
> > > > > > an availability zone is offline). Tracking topics/partitions not
> > > > > optimally
> > > > > > spread across all racks can be tackled in a follow up KIP. *
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you mean to say that such under-replicated topics (including
> > > > > human-created ones) will be handled in a separete KIP ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 10:15, Mickael Maison <mickael.maison@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With 2.5.0 approaching, bumping this thread once more as feedback or
> > > > > > votes would be nice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:59 PM Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 non-binding. Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:05 PM Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > <so...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Mickael,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > thanks for your response! That all makes perfect sense and I
> > > cannot
> > > > > > > > give any actual use cases for where what I asked about would be
> > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > It was more the idle thought if this might be low hanging fruit
> > > while
> > > > > > > > changing this anyway to avoid having to circle back later on and
> > > > > > > > wanted to at least mention it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am totally happy either way!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Sönke
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 11:20, Mickael Maison <
> > > > > mickael.maison@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks Sönke for the feedback.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I debated this point quite a bit before deciding to base
> > > creation
> > > > > > > > > around "min.insync.replicas".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For me, the goal of this KIP is to enable administrators to
> > > provide
> > > > > > > > > higher availability. In a 3 node cluster configured for high
> > > > > > > > > availability (3 replicas, 2 min ISR), by enabling this feature,
> > > > > > > > > clusters should be fully usable even when 1 broker is down.
> > > This
> > > > > > > > > should cover all "normal" maintenance operations like a rolling
> > > > > > > > > restart or just the recovery of a broker.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > At the moment, when creating a topic/partition, the assumption
> > > is
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > the resource will be fully functioning. This KIP does not
> > > change
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > assumption. If this is something someone wants, I think it
> > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > handled in a different KIP that targets that use case. By
> > > relying
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > "min.insync.replicas", we don't break any assumptions the user
> > > has
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > this should be fully transparent from the user point of view.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > About "min.insync.replicas", one caveat that is not explicit
> > > in the
> > > > > > > > > KIP is that it's currently possible to create topics with less
> > > > > > > > > replicas than this settings. For that reason, I think the
> > > > > > > > > implementation will actually rely on min(replicas, min-isr)
> > > instead
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > simply min.insync.replicas. I have updated the KIP to
> > > explicitly
> > > > > > > > > mention this point.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I hope that answers your question, let me know.
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > > > <so...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > that sounds like a useful addition! I can't help but wonder
> > > > > > whether by
> > > > > > > > > > leaving in the restriction that "min.insync.replicas" has to
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > > satisfied we'll be back here in a years time because someone
> > > has
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > scenario where he or she wants to go below that :)
> > > > > > > > > > I don't have a strong opinion either way to be honest, just a
> > > > > > random
> > > > > > > > > > thought when reading the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Sönke
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 22:44, Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +1 non-binding, thx
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 6:09 AM Mickael Maison <
> > > > > > > > mickael.maison@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bumping this thread, I've not seen any votes or feedback.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:17 PM Mickael Maison
> > > > > > > > > > > > <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start a vote on KIP-409: Allow creating
> > > > > > > > under-replicated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > topics and partitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-409%3A+Allow+creating+under-replicated+topics+and+partitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > > > > Partner
> > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878
> > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 Wedel -
> > > > > > Germany
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > > Partner
> > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878
> > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880 Wedel -
> > > Germany
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-409: Allow creating under-replicated topics and partitions
Posted by Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com>.
Bumping this thread.
We are still missing binding votes.
Please take a look at the KIP
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-409%3A+Allow+creating+under-replicated+topics+and+partitions
and let me know if you have any feedback.
Thanks
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 10:03 AM Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bumping this thread once again.
> So far we only have 4 non binding votes.
>
> Please take a look at the KIP, share any feedback and consider voting.
> Thanks
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 12:03 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey all, please consider voting for this KIP. It's really a shame that
> > topic creation is impossible when clusters are under-provisioned, which is
> > not uncommon in a dynamic environment like Kubernetes.
> >
> > Ryanne
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:57 AM Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have not seen any new feedback nor votes.
> > > Bumping this thread again
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:55 PM Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > We are now at 4 non-binding votes but still no binding votes.
> > > > I have not seen any outstanding questions in the DISCUSS thread. If
> > > > you have any feedback, please let me know.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:03 PM M. Manna <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > MIckael,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:01, Mickael Maison <mickael.maison@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Manna,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In your example, the topic 'dummy' is not under replicated. It just
> > > > > > has 1 replica. A topic under replicated is a topic with less ISRs
> > > than
> > > > > > replicas.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having under replicated topics is relatively common in a Kafka
> > > > > > cluster, it happens everytime is broker is down. However Kafka does
> > > > > > not permit it to happen at topic creation. Currently at creation,
> > > > > > Kafka requires to have at least as many brokers as the replication
> > > > > > factor. This KIP addresses this limitation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding your 2nd point. When rack awareness is enabled, Kafka tries
> > > > > > to distribute partitions across racks. When all brokers in a rack are
> > > > > > down (ie: a zone is offline), you can end up with partitions not well
> > > > > > distributed even with rack awareness. There are currently no easy way
> > > > > > to track such partitions so I decided to not attempt addressing this
> > > > > > issue in this KIP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I hope that answers your questions.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It does and I appreciate you taking time and explaining this.
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 (binding) if I haven't already.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Kamal Chandraprakash
> > > > > > <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 (non-binding). Thanks for the KIP!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 1:58 PM M. Manna <ma...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Mikael,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Apologies for last minute question, as I just caught up with it.
> > > > > > Thanks for
> > > > > > > > your work on the KIP.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just trying to get your thoughts on one thing (I might have
> > > > > > misunderstood
> > > > > > > > it) - currently it's possible (even though I am strongly against
> > > it) to
> > > > > > > > create Kafka topics which are under-replicated; despite all
> > > brokers
> > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > online. This the the output of an intentionally under-replicated
> > > topic
> > > > > > > > "dummy" with p=6 and RF=1 (with a 3 node cluster)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > virtualadmin@kafka-broker-machine-1:/opt/kafka/bin$
> > > ./kafka-topics.sh
> > > > > > > > --create --topic dummy --partitions 6 --replication-factor 1
> > > > > > > > --bootstrap-server localhost:9092
> > > > > > > > virtualadmin@kafka-broker-machine-1:/opt/kafka/bin$
> > > ./kafka-topics.sh
> > > > > > > > --describe --topic dummy --bootstrap-server localhost:9092
> > > > > > > > Topic:dummy PartitionCount:6 ReplicationFactor:1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > Configs:compression.type=gzip,min.insync.replicas=2,cleanup.policy=delete,segment.bytes=10485760,max.message.bytes=10642642,retention.bytes=20971520
> > > > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 0 Leader: 3
> > > Replicas: 3
> > > > > > > > Isr: 3
> > > > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 1 Leader: 1
> > > Replicas: 1
> > > > > > > > Isr: 1
> > > > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 2 Leader: 2
> > > Replicas: 2
> > > > > > > > Isr: 2
> > > > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 3 Leader: 3
> > > Replicas: 3
> > > > > > > > Isr: 3
> > > > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 4 Leader: 1
> > > Replicas: 1
> > > > > > > > Isr: 1
> > > > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 5 Leader: 2
> > > Replicas: 2
> > > > > > > > Isr: 2
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is with respect to the following statement on your KIP
> > > (i.e.
> > > > > > > > under-replicated topic creation is also permitted when none is
> > > > > > offline):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *but note that this may already happen (without this KIP) when
> > > > > > > > > topics/partitions are created while all brokers in a rack are
> > > offline
> > > > > > > > (ie:
> > > > > > > > > an availability zone is offline). Tracking topics/partitions
> > > not
> > > > > > > > optimally
> > > > > > > > > spread across all racks can be tackled in a follow up KIP. *
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Did you mean to say that such under-replicated topics (including
> > > > > > > > human-created ones) will be handled in a separete KIP ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 10:15, Mickael Maison <
> > > mickael.maison@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > With 2.5.0 approaching, bumping this thread once more as
> > > feedback or
> > > > > > > > > votes would be nice.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:59 PM Tom Bentley <
> > > tbentley@redhat.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1 non-binding. Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:05 PM Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > > > > <so...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mickael,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > thanks for your response! That all makes perfect sense and
> > > I
> > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > > > > give any actual use cases for where what I asked about
> > > would be
> > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > > > It was more the idle thought if this might be low hanging
> > > fruit
> > > > > > while
> > > > > > > > > > > changing this anyway to avoid having to circle back later
> > > on and
> > > > > > > > > > > wanted to at least mention it.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I am totally happy either way!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Sönke
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 11:20, Mickael Maison <
> > > > > > > > mickael.maison@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sönke for the feedback.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I debated this point quite a bit before deciding to base
> > > > > > creation
> > > > > > > > > > > > around "min.insync.replicas".
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > For me, the goal of this KIP is to enable administrators
> > > to
> > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > > higher availability. In a 3 node cluster configured for
> > > high
> > > > > > > > > > > > availability (3 replicas, 2 min ISR), by enabling this
> > > feature,
> > > > > > > > > > > > clusters should be fully usable even when 1 broker is
> > > down.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > should cover all "normal" maintenance operations like a
> > > rolling
> > > > > > > > > > > > restart or just the recovery of a broker.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > At the moment, when creating a topic/partition, the
> > > assumption
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > the resource will be fully functioning. This KIP does not
> > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > assumption. If this is something someone wants, I think
> > > it
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > handled in a different KIP that targets that use case. By
> > > > > > relying
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > "min.insync.replicas", we don't break any assumptions
> > > the user
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > this should be fully transparent from the user point of
> > > view.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > About "min.insync.replicas", one caveat that is not
> > > explicit
> > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > KIP is that it's currently possible to create topics
> > > with less
> > > > > > > > > > > > replicas than this settings. For that reason, I think the
> > > > > > > > > > > > implementation will actually rely on min(replicas,
> > > min-isr)
> > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > simply min.insync.replicas. I have updated the KIP to
> > > > > > explicitly
> > > > > > > > > > > > mention this point.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I hope that answers your question, let me know.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > > > > > > <so...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that sounds like a useful addition! I can't help but
> > > wonder
> > > > > > > > > whether by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > leaving in the restriction that "min.insync.replicas"
> > > has to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > satisfied we'll be back here in a years time because
> > > someone
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > scenario where he or she wants to go below that :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't have a strong opinion either way to be honest,
> > > just a
> > > > > > > > > random
> > > > > > > > > > > > > thought when reading the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 22:44, Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 non-binding, thx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 6:09 AM Mickael Maison <
> > > > > > > > > > > mickael.maison@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bumping this thread, I've not seen any votes or
> > > feedback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:17 PM Mickael Maison
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start a vote on KIP-409: Allow
> > > creating
> > > > > > > > > > > under-replicated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > topics and partitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-409%3A+Allow+creating+under-replicated+topics+and+partitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Partner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878
> > > > > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880
> > > Wedel -
> > > > > > > > > Germany
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > > > > > Partner
> > > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878
> > > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880
> > > Wedel -
> > > > > > Germany
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-409: Allow creating under-replicated topics and partitions
Posted by Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com>.
Bumping this thread once again.
So far we only have 4 non binding votes.
Please take a look at the KIP, share any feedback and consider voting.
Thanks
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 12:03 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey all, please consider voting for this KIP. It's really a shame that
> topic creation is impossible when clusters are under-provisioned, which is
> not uncommon in a dynamic environment like Kubernetes.
>
> Ryanne
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:57 AM Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I have not seen any new feedback nor votes.
> > Bumping this thread again
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:55 PM Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We are now at 4 non-binding votes but still no binding votes.
> > > I have not seen any outstanding questions in the DISCUSS thread. If
> > > you have any feedback, please let me know.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:03 PM M. Manna <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > MIckael,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:01, Mickael Maison <mickael.maison@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Manna,
> > > > >
> > > > > In your example, the topic 'dummy' is not under replicated. It just
> > > > > has 1 replica. A topic under replicated is a topic with less ISRs
> > than
> > > > > replicas.
> > > > >
> > > > > Having under replicated topics is relatively common in a Kafka
> > > > > cluster, it happens everytime is broker is down. However Kafka does
> > > > > not permit it to happen at topic creation. Currently at creation,
> > > > > Kafka requires to have at least as many brokers as the replication
> > > > > factor. This KIP addresses this limitation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding your 2nd point. When rack awareness is enabled, Kafka tries
> > > > > to distribute partitions across racks. When all brokers in a rack are
> > > > > down (ie: a zone is offline), you can end up with partitions not well
> > > > > distributed even with rack awareness. There are currently no easy way
> > > > > to track such partitions so I decided to not attempt addressing this
> > > > > issue in this KIP.
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope that answers your questions.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It does and I appreciate you taking time and explaining this.
> > > >
> > > > +1 (binding) if I haven't already.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Kamal Chandraprakash
> > > > > <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1 (non-binding). Thanks for the KIP!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 1:58 PM M. Manna <ma...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Mikael,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Apologies for last minute question, as I just caught up with it.
> > > > > Thanks for
> > > > > > > your work on the KIP.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just trying to get your thoughts on one thing (I might have
> > > > > misunderstood
> > > > > > > it) - currently it's possible (even though I am strongly against
> > it) to
> > > > > > > create Kafka topics which are under-replicated; despite all
> > brokers
> > > > > being
> > > > > > > online. This the the output of an intentionally under-replicated
> > topic
> > > > > > > "dummy" with p=6 and RF=1 (with a 3 node cluster)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > virtualadmin@kafka-broker-machine-1:/opt/kafka/bin$
> > ./kafka-topics.sh
> > > > > > > --create --topic dummy --partitions 6 --replication-factor 1
> > > > > > > --bootstrap-server localhost:9092
> > > > > > > virtualadmin@kafka-broker-machine-1:/opt/kafka/bin$
> > ./kafka-topics.sh
> > > > > > > --describe --topic dummy --bootstrap-server localhost:9092
> > > > > > > Topic:dummy PartitionCount:6 ReplicationFactor:1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > Configs:compression.type=gzip,min.insync.replicas=2,cleanup.policy=delete,segment.bytes=10485760,max.message.bytes=10642642,retention.bytes=20971520
> > > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 0 Leader: 3
> > Replicas: 3
> > > > > > > Isr: 3
> > > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 1 Leader: 1
> > Replicas: 1
> > > > > > > Isr: 1
> > > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 2 Leader: 2
> > Replicas: 2
> > > > > > > Isr: 2
> > > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 3 Leader: 3
> > Replicas: 3
> > > > > > > Isr: 3
> > > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 4 Leader: 1
> > Replicas: 1
> > > > > > > Isr: 1
> > > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 5 Leader: 2
> > Replicas: 2
> > > > > > > Isr: 2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is with respect to the following statement on your KIP
> > (i.e.
> > > > > > > under-replicated topic creation is also permitted when none is
> > > > > offline):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *but note that this may already happen (without this KIP) when
> > > > > > > > topics/partitions are created while all brokers in a rack are
> > offline
> > > > > > > (ie:
> > > > > > > > an availability zone is offline). Tracking topics/partitions
> > not
> > > > > > > optimally
> > > > > > > > spread across all racks can be tackled in a follow up KIP. *
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Did you mean to say that such under-replicated topics (including
> > > > > > > human-created ones) will be handled in a separete KIP ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 10:15, Mickael Maison <
> > mickael.maison@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With 2.5.0 approaching, bumping this thread once more as
> > feedback or
> > > > > > > > votes would be nice.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:59 PM Tom Bentley <
> > tbentley@redhat.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 non-binding. Thanks!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:05 PM Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > > > <so...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Mickael,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > thanks for your response! That all makes perfect sense and
> > I
> > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > > > give any actual use cases for where what I asked about
> > would be
> > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > > It was more the idle thought if this might be low hanging
> > fruit
> > > > > while
> > > > > > > > > > changing this anyway to avoid having to circle back later
> > on and
> > > > > > > > > > wanted to at least mention it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am totally happy either way!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Sönke
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 11:20, Mickael Maison <
> > > > > > > mickael.maison@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sönke for the feedback.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I debated this point quite a bit before deciding to base
> > > > > creation
> > > > > > > > > > > around "min.insync.replicas".
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For me, the goal of this KIP is to enable administrators
> > to
> > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > > higher availability. In a 3 node cluster configured for
> > high
> > > > > > > > > > > availability (3 replicas, 2 min ISR), by enabling this
> > feature,
> > > > > > > > > > > clusters should be fully usable even when 1 broker is
> > down.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > should cover all "normal" maintenance operations like a
> > rolling
> > > > > > > > > > > restart or just the recovery of a broker.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > At the moment, when creating a topic/partition, the
> > assumption
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > the resource will be fully functioning. This KIP does not
> > > > > change
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > assumption. If this is something someone wants, I think
> > it
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > handled in a different KIP that targets that use case. By
> > > > > relying
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > "min.insync.replicas", we don't break any assumptions
> > the user
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > this should be fully transparent from the user point of
> > view.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > About "min.insync.replicas", one caveat that is not
> > explicit
> > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > > > KIP is that it's currently possible to create topics
> > with less
> > > > > > > > > > > replicas than this settings. For that reason, I think the
> > > > > > > > > > > implementation will actually rely on min(replicas,
> > min-isr)
> > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > simply min.insync.replicas. I have updated the KIP to
> > > > > explicitly
> > > > > > > > > > > mention this point.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I hope that answers your question, let me know.
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > > > > > <so...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > that sounds like a useful addition! I can't help but
> > wonder
> > > > > > > > whether by
> > > > > > > > > > > > leaving in the restriction that "min.insync.replicas"
> > has to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > satisfied we'll be back here in a years time because
> > someone
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > scenario where he or she wants to go below that :)
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't have a strong opinion either way to be honest,
> > just a
> > > > > > > > random
> > > > > > > > > > > > thought when reading the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 22:44, Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 non-binding, thx
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 6:09 AM Mickael Maison <
> > > > > > > > > > mickael.maison@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bumping this thread, I've not seen any votes or
> > feedback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:17 PM Mickael Maison
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start a vote on KIP-409: Allow
> > creating
> > > > > > > > > > under-replicated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > topics and partitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-409%3A+Allow+creating+under-replicated+topics+and+partitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > > > > > > Partner
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878
> > > > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880
> > Wedel -
> > > > > > > > Germany
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > > > > Partner
> > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878
> > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880
> > Wedel -
> > > > > Germany
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-409: Allow creating under-replicated topics and partitions
Posted by Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>.
Hey all, please consider voting for this KIP. It's really a shame that
topic creation is impossible when clusters are under-provisioned, which is
not uncommon in a dynamic environment like Kubernetes.
Ryanne
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:57 AM Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I have not seen any new feedback nor votes.
> Bumping this thread again
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:55 PM Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are now at 4 non-binding votes but still no binding votes.
> > I have not seen any outstanding questions in the DISCUSS thread. If
> > you have any feedback, please let me know.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:03 PM M. Manna <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > MIckael,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:01, Mickael Maison <mickael.maison@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Manna,
> > > >
> > > > In your example, the topic 'dummy' is not under replicated. It just
> > > > has 1 replica. A topic under replicated is a topic with less ISRs
> than
> > > > replicas.
> > > >
> > > > Having under replicated topics is relatively common in a Kafka
> > > > cluster, it happens everytime is broker is down. However Kafka does
> > > > not permit it to happen at topic creation. Currently at creation,
> > > > Kafka requires to have at least as many brokers as the replication
> > > > factor. This KIP addresses this limitation.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding your 2nd point. When rack awareness is enabled, Kafka tries
> > > > to distribute partitions across racks. When all brokers in a rack are
> > > > down (ie: a zone is offline), you can end up with partitions not well
> > > > distributed even with rack awareness. There are currently no easy way
> > > > to track such partitions so I decided to not attempt addressing this
> > > > issue in this KIP.
> > > >
> > > > I hope that answers your questions.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It does and I appreciate you taking time and explaining this.
> > >
> > > +1 (binding) if I haven't already.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 4:10 PM Kamal Chandraprakash
> > > > <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 (non-binding). Thanks for the KIP!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 1:58 PM M. Manna <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Mikael,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Apologies for last minute question, as I just caught up with it.
> > > > Thanks for
> > > > > > your work on the KIP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just trying to get your thoughts on one thing (I might have
> > > > misunderstood
> > > > > > it) - currently it's possible (even though I am strongly against
> it) to
> > > > > > create Kafka topics which are under-replicated; despite all
> brokers
> > > > being
> > > > > > online. This the the output of an intentionally under-replicated
> topic
> > > > > > "dummy" with p=6 and RF=1 (with a 3 node cluster)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > virtualadmin@kafka-broker-machine-1:/opt/kafka/bin$
> ./kafka-topics.sh
> > > > > > --create --topic dummy --partitions 6 --replication-factor 1
> > > > > > --bootstrap-server localhost:9092
> > > > > > virtualadmin@kafka-broker-machine-1:/opt/kafka/bin$
> ./kafka-topics.sh
> > > > > > --describe --topic dummy --bootstrap-server localhost:9092
> > > > > > Topic:dummy PartitionCount:6 ReplicationFactor:1
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> Configs:compression.type=gzip,min.insync.replicas=2,cleanup.policy=delete,segment.bytes=10485760,max.message.bytes=10642642,retention.bytes=20971520
> > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 0 Leader: 3
> Replicas: 3
> > > > > > Isr: 3
> > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 1 Leader: 1
> Replicas: 1
> > > > > > Isr: 1
> > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 2 Leader: 2
> Replicas: 2
> > > > > > Isr: 2
> > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 3 Leader: 3
> Replicas: 3
> > > > > > Isr: 3
> > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 4 Leader: 1
> Replicas: 1
> > > > > > Isr: 1
> > > > > > Topic: dummy Partition: 5 Leader: 2
> Replicas: 2
> > > > > > Isr: 2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is with respect to the following statement on your KIP
> (i.e.
> > > > > > under-replicated topic creation is also permitted when none is
> > > > offline):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *but note that this may already happen (without this KIP) when
> > > > > > > topics/partitions are created while all brokers in a rack are
> offline
> > > > > > (ie:
> > > > > > > an availability zone is offline). Tracking topics/partitions
> not
> > > > > > optimally
> > > > > > > spread across all racks can be tackled in a follow up KIP. *
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did you mean to say that such under-replicated topics (including
> > > > > > human-created ones) will be handled in a separete KIP ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 10:15, Mickael Maison <
> mickael.maison@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With 2.5.0 approaching, bumping this thread once more as
> feedback or
> > > > > > > votes would be nice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:59 PM Tom Bentley <
> tbentley@redhat.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 non-binding. Thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:05 PM Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > > <so...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Mickael,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > thanks for your response! That all makes perfect sense and
> I
> > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > > give any actual use cases for where what I asked about
> would be
> > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > It was more the idle thought if this might be low hanging
> fruit
> > > > while
> > > > > > > > > changing this anyway to avoid having to circle back later
> on and
> > > > > > > > > wanted to at least mention it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am totally happy either way!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Sönke
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 11:20, Mickael Maison <
> > > > > > mickael.maison@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sönke for the feedback.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I debated this point quite a bit before deciding to base
> > > > creation
> > > > > > > > > > around "min.insync.replicas".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For me, the goal of this KIP is to enable administrators
> to
> > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > higher availability. In a 3 node cluster configured for
> high
> > > > > > > > > > availability (3 replicas, 2 min ISR), by enabling this
> feature,
> > > > > > > > > > clusters should be fully usable even when 1 broker is
> down.
> > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > should cover all "normal" maintenance operations like a
> rolling
> > > > > > > > > > restart or just the recovery of a broker.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > At the moment, when creating a topic/partition, the
> assumption
> > > > is
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > the resource will be fully functioning. This KIP does not
> > > > change
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > assumption. If this is something someone wants, I think
> it
> > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > handled in a different KIP that targets that use case. By
> > > > relying
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > "min.insync.replicas", we don't break any assumptions
> the user
> > > > has
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > this should be fully transparent from the user point of
> view.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > About "min.insync.replicas", one caveat that is not
> explicit
> > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > > KIP is that it's currently possible to create topics
> with less
> > > > > > > > > > replicas than this settings. For that reason, I think the
> > > > > > > > > > implementation will actually rely on min(replicas,
> min-isr)
> > > > instead
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > simply min.insync.replicas. I have updated the KIP to
> > > > explicitly
> > > > > > > > > > mention this point.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I hope that answers your question, let me know.
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > > > > <so...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Michael,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > that sounds like a useful addition! I can't help but
> wonder
> > > > > > > whether by
> > > > > > > > > > > leaving in the restriction that "min.insync.replicas"
> has to
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > satisfied we'll be back here in a years time because
> someone
> > > > has
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > scenario where he or she wants to go below that :)
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't have a strong opinion either way to be honest,
> just a
> > > > > > > random
> > > > > > > > > > > thought when reading the KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Sönke
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 22:44, Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 non-binding, thx
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 6:09 AM Mickael Maison <
> > > > > > > > > mickael.maison@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bumping this thread, I've not seen any votes or
> feedback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:17 PM Mickael Maison
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start a vote on KIP-409: Allow
> creating
> > > > > > > > > under-replicated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > topics and partitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-409%3A+Allow+creating+under-replicated+topics+and+partitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > > > > > Partner
> > > > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878
> > > > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880
> Wedel -
> > > > > > > Germany
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Sönke Liebau
> > > > > > > > > Partner
> > > > > > > > > Tel. +49 179 7940878
> > > > > > > > > OpenCore GmbH & Co. KG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 8 - 22880
> Wedel -
> > > > Germany
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
>