[VOTE] KIP-101: Alter Replication Protocol to use Leader Generation rather than High Watermark for Truncation

[Ben Stopford <be...@confluent.io>]

Hi All

Happy New Year!

Hopefully everyone has had an opportunity to review this KIP now, if they
wished to, so I'd like to call a vote.

As a reminder the KIP proposes a change to the replication protocol to
remove the potential for replicas to diverge.

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-101+-+Alter+Replication+Protocol+to+use+Leader+Epoch+rather+than+High+Watermark+for+Truncation

Thanks

B

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:55 PM Ben Stopford <be...@confluent.io> wrote:

> Thanks Apurva - yes that's one of those funny english phrases which are
> often read one way, but are really quite ambiguous. I have reworded.
>
> Thanks for pointing this one out. Appreciated.
>
> B
>
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 at 23:49, Apurva Mehta <ap...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> Hi Ben,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the KIP. It is very well written and explains the problem and
>
> solution very nicely. I have one --very minor-- question. In the 'steps'
>
> section, you write:
>
>
>
> > 4.6 The follower starts fetching from the leader from its log end offset.
>
>
>
> The use of 'its' is a bit ambiguous here. I presume that you mean that the
>
> follower fetches from the log end offset of the follower (and not the
>
> leader). Might be worth clarifying whose log end offset is referred to
>
> here.
>
>
>
> While the perceived ambiguity may be put down to my english skills, I still
>
> feet it would be better to leave no room for doubt.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Apurva
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 4:30 AM, Ben Stopford <be...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi All
>
> >
>
> > Please find the below KIP which describes a proposed solution to a couple
>
> > of issues that have been observed with the replication protocol.
>
> >
>
> > In short, the proposal replaces the use of the High Watermark, for
>
> > follower log trunctation, with an alternate Generation Marker. This
>
> > uniquely defines which leader messages were acknowledged by.
>
> >
>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>
> > 101+-+Alter+Replication+Protocol+to+use+Leader+
>
> > Generation+rather+than+High+Watermark+for+Truncation <
>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>
> > 101+-+Alter+Replication+Protocol+to+use+Leader+
>
> > Generation+rather+than+High+Watermark+for+Truncation>
>
> >
>
> > All comments and suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> >
>
> > Ben Stopford
>
> > Confluent, http://www.confluent.io <http://www.confluent.io/>
>
> >
>
> >
>
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-101: Alter Replication Protocol to use Leader Generation rather than High Watermark for Truncation

[Ben Stopford <be...@confluent.io>]

Closing this thread.

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:00 PM Ben Stopford <be...@confluent.io> wrote:

> Hi All
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> Hopefully everyone has had an opportunity to review this KIP now, if they
> wished to, so I'd like to call a vote.
>
> As a reminder the KIP proposes a change to the replication protocol to
> remove the potential for replicas to diverge.
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-101+-+Alter+Replication+Protocol+to+use+Leader+Epoch+rather+than+High+Watermark+for+Truncation
>
> Thanks
>
> B
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:55 PM Ben Stopford <be...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> Thanks Apurva - yes that's one of those funny english phrases which are
> often read one way, but are really quite ambiguous. I have reworded.
>
> Thanks for pointing this one out. Appreciated.
>
> B
>
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 at 23:49, Apurva Mehta <ap...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> Hi Ben,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the KIP. It is very well written and explains the problem and
>
> solution very nicely. I have one --very minor-- question. In the 'steps'
>
> section, you write:
>
>
>
> > 4.6 The follower starts fetching from the leader from its log end offset.
>
>
>
> The use of 'its' is a bit ambiguous here. I presume that you mean that the
>
> follower fetches from the log end offset of the follower (and not the
>
> leader). Might be worth clarifying whose log end offset is referred to
>
> here.
>
>
>
> While the perceived ambiguity may be put down to my english skills, I still
>
> feet it would be better to leave no room for doubt.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Apurva
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 4:30 AM, Ben Stopford <be...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi All
>
> >
>
> > Please find the below KIP which describes a proposed solution to a couple
>
> > of issues that have been observed with the replication protocol.
>
> >
>
> > In short, the proposal replaces the use of the High Watermark, for
>
> > follower log trunctation, with an alternate Generation Marker. This
>
> > uniquely defines which leader messages were acknowledged by.
>
> >
>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>
> > 101+-+Alter+Replication+Protocol+to+use+Leader+
>
> > Generation+rather+than+High+Watermark+for+Truncation <
>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>
> > 101+-+Alter+Replication+Protocol+to+use+Leader+
>
> > Generation+rather+than+High+Watermark+for+Truncation>
>
> >
>
> > All comments and suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> >
>
> > Ben Stopford
>
> > Confluent, http://www.confluent.io <http://www.confluent.io/>
>
> >
>
> >
>
>