[GitHub] [kafka-site] vvcephei commented on a change in pull request #301: Redo 2.6 docs commit

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

vvcephei commented on a change in pull request #301:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka-site/pull/301#discussion_r485142442



##########
File path: 26/streams/developer-guide/memory-mgmt.html
##########
@@ -202,7 +202,10 @@ <h2><a class="toc-backref" href="#id3">RocksDB</a><a class="headerlink" href="#r
        <span class="o">}</span>
     <span class="o">}</span>
       </div>
-        <sup id="fn1">1. INDEX_FILTER_BLOCK_RATIO can be used to set a fraction of the block cache to set aside for "high priority" (aka index and filter) blocks, preventing them from being evicted by data blocks. See the full signature of the <a class="reference external" href="https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/master/java/src/main/java/org/rocksdb/LRUCache.java#L72">LRUCache constructor</a>. </sup>
+        <sup id="fn1">1. INDEX_FILTER_BLOCK_RATIO can be used to set a fraction of the block cache to set aside for "high priority" (aka index and filter) blocks, preventing them from being evicted by data blocks. See the full signature of the <a class="reference external" href="https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/master/java/src/main/java/org/rocksdb/LRUCache.java#L72">LRUCache constructor</a>.
+          NOTE: the boolean parameter in the cache constructor lets you control whether the cache should enforce a strict memory limit by failing the read or iteration in the rare cases where it might go larger than its capacity. Due to a
+          <a class="reference external" href="https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/issues/6247">bug in RocksDB</a>, this option cannot be used
+          if the write buffer memory is also counted against the cache. If you set this to true, you should NOT pass the cache in to the <code>WriteBufferManager</code> and just control the write buffer and cache memory separately.</sup>

Review comment:
       It looks like this (and some other stuff in the config-streams file) has come along for the ride. We should make sure it's referencing behavior that was released, not behavior that will be released next. Can you double-check that this actually is in reference to 2.6.0, and not 2.6.1+?




----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org