kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] KIP 226 - Dynamic Broker Configuration
Date Tue, 09 Jan 2018 21:38:09 GMT
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017, at 13:40, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> Hi Rajini,
> 
> Looking good. Just a few questions.
> 
> 1. (Related to Jay's comment) Is the validate() method on Reconfigurable
> necessary? I would have thought we'd validate using the ConfigDef. Do you
> have a use case in mind in which the reconfigurable component only permits
> certain reconfigurations?

Hi,

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but when we talk about validating on the ConfigDef, we're talking about validating on the server side, right?  The software on the client side might be older or newer than the software on the broker side, so it seems inadvisable to do the validation there.

Also, after a software downgrade, when the broker is restarted, it might find that there is a configuration key that is stored in ZK that is not dynamic in its (older) software version.  It seems like, with the current proposal, the broker will use the value found in the local configuration (config file) rather than the new ZK version.  Should the broker print out a WARN message in that scenario?

best,
Colin

> 2. Should Reconfigurable extend Configurable or is the initial
> configuration also done through reconfigure()? I ask because not all
> plugins interfaces currently extend Configurable (e.g.
> KafkaPrincipalBuilder).
> 3. You mentioned a couple changes to DescribeConfigsOptions and
> DescribeConfigsResult. Perhaps we should list the changes explicitly? One
> not totally obvious case is what the synonyms() getter would return if the
> option is not specified (i.e. should it raise an exception or return an
> empty list?).
> 4. Config entries in the DescribeConfigs response have an is_default flag.
> Could that be replaced with the more general config_source?
> 5. Bit of an internal question, but how do you handle config dependencies?
> For example, suppose I want to add a listener and configure its principal
> builder at once. You'd have to validate the principal builder config in the
> context of the listener config, so I guess the order of the entries in
> AlterConfigs is significant?
> 6. KIP-48 (delegation tokens) gives us a master secret which is shared by
> all brokers. Do you think we would make this dynamically configurable?
> Alternatively, it might be possible to use it to encrypt the other
> passwords we store in zookeeper.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jason
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Rajini Sivaram <rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Jay,
> >
> > Thank you for reviewing the KIP.
> >
> > 1) Yes, makes sense. I will update the PR. There are some config updates
> > that may be allowed depending on the context (e.g. some security configs
> > can be updated for new listeners, but not existing listeners). Perhaps it
> > is ok to mark them dynamic in the documentation. AdminClient would give
> > appropriate error messages if the update is not allowed.
> > 2) Internally, in the implementation, a mixture of direct config updates
> > (e.g log config as you have pointed out) and reconfigure method invocations
> > (e.g. SslFactory) are used. For configurable plugins (e.g. metrics
> > reporter), we require the Reconfigurable interface to ensure that we can
> > validate any custom configs and avoid reconfiguration for plugin versions
> > that don't support it.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Jay Kreps <jay@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Two thoughts on implementation (shouldn't effect the KIP):
> > >
> > >    1. It might be nice to add a parameter to ConfigDef which says
> > whether a
> > >    configuration is dynamically updatable or not so that we can give
> > error
> > >    messages if it isn't and also have it reflected in the auto-generated
> > > docs.
> > >    2. For many systems they don't really need to take action if a config
> > >    changes, they just need to use the new value. Changing them all to
> > >    Reconfigurable requires managing a fair amount of mutability in each
> > > class
> > >    that accepts changes. Some need this since they need to take actions
> > > when a
> > >    config changes, but it seems like many just need to update some value.
> > > For
> > >    the later you might just be able to do something like what we do for
> > >    LogConfig where there is a single CurrentConfig instance that has a
> > >    reference to the current KafkaConfig and always reference your
> > > configurable
> > >    parameters via this (e.g. config.current.myConfig). Dunno if that is
> > >    actually better, but thought I'd throw it out there.
> > >
> > > -Jay
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Rajini Sivaram <rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Jun,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you!
> > > >
> > > > 5. Yes, that makes sense. Agree that we don't want to add protocol
> > > changes
> > > > to *UpdateMetadataRequest* in this KIP. I have moved the update of
> > > > *log.message.format.version* and *inter.broker.protocol.version* to
> > > reduce
> > > > restarts during upgrade to* Future Work*. We can do this in a follow-on
> > > > KIP.
> > > >
> > > > I will wait for another day to see if there are any more comments and
> > > start
> > > > vote on Tuesday if there are no other concerns.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Jun Rao <jun@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, Rajini,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the reply. They all make sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Got it. Note that currently, only live brokers are registered in
> > ZK.
> > > > > Another thing is that I am not sure that we want every broker to read
> > > all
> > > > > broker registrations directly from ZK. It's probably better to have
> > the
> > > > > controller propagate this information. That will require changing the
> > > > > UpdateMetadataRequest protocol though. So, I am not sure if you want
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > that in the same KIP.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jun
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> > > rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jun,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the review.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. No, I am hoping to migrate partitions to new threads. We just
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > ensure they don't run concurrently.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. AdminClient has a validateOnly option for AlterConfigs. Any
> > > > exceptions
> > > > > > or return value of false from Reconfigurable#validate would fail
> > the
> > > > > > AlterConfigsRequest.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Yes, we will support describe and alter of configs with listener
> > > > > prefix.
> > > > > > We will not allow alterConfigs() of security configs without the
> > > > listener
> > > > > > prefix, since we need to prevent the whole cluster being made
> > > unusable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. Thank you, will make a note of that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5. When we are upgrading (from 1.0 to 2.0 for example), my
> > > > understanding
> > > > > is
> > > > > > that we set inter.broker.protocol.version=1.0, do a rolling
> > upgrade
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > whole cluster and when all brokers are at 2.0, we do another
> > rolling
> > > > > > upgrade with inter.broker.protocol.version=2.0. Jason's suggestion
> > > was
> > > > > to
> > > > > > avoid the second rolling upgrade by enabling dynamic update of
> > > > > > inter.broker.protocol.version. To set
> > inter.broker.protocol.version=
> > > > 2.0
> > > > > > dynamically, we need to verify not just that the current broker is
> > on
> > > > > > version 2.0, but that all brokers int the cluster are on version
> > 2.0
> > > (I
> > > > > > thought that was the reason for the second rolling upgrade). The
> > > broker
> > > > > > version in ZK would enable that verification before performing the
> > > > > update.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 6. The config source would be STATIC_BROKER_CONFIG/DYNAMIC_
> > > > > BROKER_CONFIG,
> > > > > > the config name would be listener.name.listenerA.configX. And
> > > synonyms
> > > > > > list
> > > > > > in describeConfigs() would list  listener.name.listenerA.configX
> > as
> > > > well
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > configX.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 7. I think `default` is an overused terminology already. When
> > configs
> > > > are
> > > > > > described, they return a flag indicating if the value is a default.
> > > And
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the broker, we have so many levels of configs already and we are
> > > adding
> > > > > so
> > > > > > many more, that it may be better to use a different term. It
> > doesn't
> > > > have
> > > > > > to be synonyms, but since we want to use the same term for topics
> > and
> > > > > > brokers and we have listener configs which override non-prefixed
> > > > security
> > > > > > configs, perhaps it is ok?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rajini
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Jun Rao <jun@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > A couple more things.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 6. For the SSL/SASL configurations with the listener prefix, do
> > we
> > > > need
> > > > > > > another level in config_source since it's neither topic nor
> > broker?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 7. For include_synonyms in DescribeConfigs, the name makes sense
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > topic level configs. Not sure if it makes sense for other
> > > > hierarchies.
> > > > > > > Perhaps sth more generic like default will be better?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jun
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Jun Rao <jun@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi, Rajini,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the kip. Looks good overall. A few comments below.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. "num.replica.fetchers: Affinity of partitions to threads
> > will
> > > be
> > > > > > > > preserved for ordering." Does that mean the new fetcher threads
> > > > won't
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > used until new partitions are added? This may be limiting.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. I am wondering how the result from
> > > reporter.validate(Map<String,
> > > > > ?>
> > > > > > > > configs) will be used. If it returns false, do we return false
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > admin
> > > > > > > > client for the validation call, which will seem a bit weird?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3. For the SSL and SASL configuration changes, do we support
> > > those
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the listener prefix (e.g., external-ssl-lisener.ssl.
> > > > > > keystore.location).
> > > > > > > > If so, do we plan to include them in the result of
> > > > describeConfigs()?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4. "Updates to advertised.listeners will re-register the new
> > > > listener
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > ZK". To support this, we will likely need additional logic in
> > the
> > > > > > > > controller such that the controller can broadcast the metadata
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > listeners to every broker.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 5. Including broker version in broker registration in ZK. I am
> > > not
> > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > the usage of that. Each broker knows its version. So, is that
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > controller?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jun
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Colin McCabe <
> > > cmccabe@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017, at 06:01, Rajini Sivaram wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > Hi Colin,
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > KAFKA-5722 already has an owner, so I didn't want to confuse
> > > the
> > > > > two
> > > > > > > >> > KIPs.  They can be done independently of each other. The
> > goal
> > > is
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> > validate every config to the minimum validation already in
> > the
> > > > > > broker
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > the static configs, but in some cases to a more restrictive
> > > > level.
> > > > > > So
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > typo like a file-not-found or class-not-found would
> > definitely
> > > > > fail
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > AlterConfigs request (validation is performed by
> > AlterConfigs
> > > > > > > regardless
> > > > > > > >> > of validateOnly flag). I am working out the additional
> > > > validation
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> > perform as I implement updates for each config. For example,
> > > > > > > >> > inter-broker keystore update will not be allowed unless it
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > verified against the currently configured truststore.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> HI Rajini,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I agree.  It's probably better to avoid expanding the scope of
> > > > > > KIP-226.
> > > > > > > >> I hope we can get to KAFKA-5722 soon, though, since it will
> > > really
> > > > > > > >> improve the user experience for this feature.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> regards,
> > > > > > > >> Colin
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Colin McCabe <
> > > > cmccabe@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 14:48, Rajini Sivaram wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > Hi Colin,
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Thank you for reviewing the KIP.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > *kaka-configs.sh* will be converted to use *AdminClient*
> > > > under
> > > > > > > >> > > > KAFKA-5722.
> > > > > > > >> > > > This is targeted for the next release (1.1.0). Under
> > this
> > > > KIP,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > >> > > > implement *AdminClient#alterConfigs* for the dynamic
> > > configs
> > > > > > > listed
> > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > the KIP. This will include validation of the configs and
> > > > will
> > > > > > > return
> > > > > > > >> > > > appropriate errors if configs are invalid. Integration
> > > tests
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> also be
> > > > > > > >> > > > added using AdmnClient. Only the actual conversion of
> > > > > > > ConfigCommand
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > use AdminClient will be left to be done under
> > KAFKA-5722.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Hi Rajini,
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > It seems like there is no KIP yet for KAFKA-5722.  Does it
> > > > make
> > > > > > > sense
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > describe the conversion of kafka-configs.sh to use
> > > AdminClient
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > KIP-226?  Since the AlterConfigs RPCs already exist, it
> > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> pretty
> > > > > > > >> > > straightforward.  This would also let us add some
> > > information
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > >> how
> > > > > > > >> > > errors will be handled, which is pretty important for
> > users.
> > > > > For
> > > > > > > >> > > example, will kafka-configs.sh give an error if the user
> > > > makes a
> > > > > > > typo
> > > > > > > >> > > when setting a configuration?
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Once KAFKA-5722 is implemented,* kafka-confgs.sh* can be
> > > > used
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> obtain
> > > > > > > >> > > > the current configuration, which can be redirected to a
> > > text
> > > > > > file
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > create a
> > > > > > > >> > > > static *server.properties* file. This should help when
> > > > > > downgrading
> > > > > > > >> - but
> > > > > > > >> > > > it does require brokers to be running. We can also
> > > document
> > > > > how
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> obtain
> > > > > > > >> > > > the properties using *zookeeper-shell.sh* while
> > > downgrading
> > > > if
> > > > > > > >> brokers
> > > > > > > >> > > are
> > > > > > > >> > > > down.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > If we rename properties, we should add the new property
> > to
> > > > ZK
> > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > >> on
> > > > > > > >> > > > the value of the old property when the upgraded broker
> > > > starts
> > > > > > up.
> > > > > > > >> But we
> > > > > > > >> > > > would probably leave the old property as is. The old
> > > > property
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > >> > > returned
> > > > > > > >> > > > and used as a synonym only as long as the broker is on a
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > >> where it
> > > > > > > >> > > > is still valid. But it can remain in ZK and be updated
> > if
> > > > > > > >> downgrading -
> > > > > > > >> > > > it will be up to the user to update the old property if
> > > > > > > downgrading
> > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > >> > > > delete it if not needed. Renaming properties is likely
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > > > >> confusing
> > > > > > > >> > > in any
> > > > > > > >> > > > case even without dynamic configs, so hopefully it will
> > be
> > > > > very
> > > > > > > >> rare.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Sounds good.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > best,
> > > > > > > >> > > Colin
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Rajini
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Colin McCabe <
> > > > > > cmccabe@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi Rajini,
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > This seems like a nice improvement!
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > One thing that is a bit concerning is that, if
> > > > > > > >> bin/kafka-configs.sh is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > used, there is no  way for the broker to give feedback
> > > or
> > > > > > error
> > > > > > > >> > > > > messages.  The broker can't say "sorry, I can't
> > > > reconfigure
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > >> > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > way."  Or even "that configuration property is not
> > > > > > > reconfigurable
> > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > this version of the software."  It seems like in the
> > > > > examples
> > > > > > > >> give,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > users will simply set a configuration using
> > > > > > > bin/kafka-configs.sh,
> > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > then they have to check the broker log files to see if
> > > it
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > >> > > actually
> > > > > > > >> > > > > be applied.  And even if it couldn't be applied, then
> > it
> > > > > still
> > > > > > > >> lingers
> > > > > > > >> > > > > in ZooKeeper.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > This seems like it would lead to a lot of user
> > > confusion,
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > > >> they
> > > > > > > >> > > get
> > > > > > > >> > > > > no feedback when reconfiguring something.  For
> > example,
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > >> will be a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > lot of scenarios where someone finds a reconfiguration
> > > > > command
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Google, runs it, but then it doesn't do anything
> > because
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> software
> > > > > > > >> > > > > version is different.  And there's no error message or
> > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > >> about
> > > > > > > >> > > > > this.  It just doesn't work.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > To prevent this, I think we should convert
> > > > > > bin/kafka-configs.sh
> > > > > > > >> to use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > AdminClient's AlterConfigsRequest.  This allows us to
> > > > detect
> > > > > > > >> scenarios
> > > > > > > >> > > > > where, because of a typo, different software version,
> > > or a
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > >> of the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > wrong type (eg. string vs. int), the given
> > configuration
> > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > applied.  We really should convert kafka-configs.sh to
> > > use
> > > > > > > >> AdminClient
> > > > > > > >> > > > > anyway, for all the usual reasons-- people want to
> > lock
> > > > down
> > > > > > > >> ZooKeeper,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > ACLs should be enforced, internal representations
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> hidden, we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > should support environments where ZK is not exposed,
> > > etc.
> > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Another issue that I see here is, how does this
> > interact
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > downgrade?
> > > > > > > >> > > > >  Presumably, if the user downgrades to a version that
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > > >> > > > > KIP-226, all the dynamic configurations stored in ZK
> > > > revert
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> whatever
> > > > > > > >> > > > > value they have in the local config files.  Do we need
> > > to
> > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > >> > > utility
> > > > > > > >> > > > > that can reify the actual applied configuration into a
> > > > local
> > > > > > > text
> > > > > > > >> file,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > to make downgrades less painful?
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > With regard to upgrades, what happens if we change the
> > > > name
> > > > > > of a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > configuration key in the future?  For example, if we
> > > > decide
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> rename
> > > > > > > >> > > > > min.insync.replicas to min.in.sync.replicas,
> > presumably
> > > we
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > deprecate the old key name.  And then perhaps it will
> > be
> > > > > > removed
> > > > > > > >> in a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > future release, such as Apache Kafka 2.0.  In this
> > > > scenario,
> > > > > > > >> should the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Kafka upgrade process change the name of the
> > > configuration
> > > > > key
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> ZK
> > > > > > > >> > > > > from min.insync.replicas to min.in.sync.replicas?
> > > > Obviously
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > make downgrades harder, if so.  But if it doesn't,
> > then
> > > > > > removing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > deprecated configuration key synonyms might become
> > very
> > > > > > > difficult.
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > best,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Colin
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, at 12:52, Rajini Sivaram wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > No, I am not proposing this as a way to configure
> > > > > > replication
> > > > > > > >> quotas.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > When
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > you describe broker configs using AdminClient, you
> > > will
> > > > > see
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > configs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > persisted in /configs/brokers/<brokerId> in
> > ZooKeeper
> > > > and
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > includes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > leader.replication.throttled.rate,
> > > > follower.replication.
> > > > > > > >> > > throttled.rate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > etc. But
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > the broker configs that can be altered using
> > > AdminClient
> > > > > as
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> result
> > > > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > this KIP are those explicitly stated in the KIP
> > (does
> > > > not
> > > > > > > >> include
> > > > > > > >> > > any of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > the quota configs).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Rajini
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Tom Bentley <
> > > > > > > >> t.j.bentley@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Rajini,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Just to clarify, are you proposing this as a way
> > to
> > > > > > > configure
> > > > > > > >> > > > > interbroker
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > throttling/quotas? I don't think you are, just
> > > wanted
> > > > to
> > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > >> > > (since
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > KIP-179 proposes a different mechanism for setting
> > > > them
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > >> > > supports
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > their automatic removal).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On 22 November 2017 at 18:28, Rajini Sivaram <
> > > > > > > >> > > rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I have made an update to the KIP to optionally
> > > > return
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > config
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > synonyms in *DescribeConfigsResponse*. The
> > > synonyms
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > >> returned
> > > > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > order of precedence. AlterConfigsResponse will
> > not
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> modified
> > > > > > > >> > > by the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > KIP.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Since many configs already have various
> > overrides
> > > > > (e.g.
> > > > > > > >> topic
> > > > > > > >> > > configs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > broker overrides, security properties with
> > > listener
> > > > > name
> > > > > > > >> > > overrides)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > will be adding more levels with dynamic configs,
> > > it
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > useful to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > obtain the full list in order of precedence.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Rajini
> > Sivaram <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Ted,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > You can quote the config name, but it is not
> > > > > necessary
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > deleting a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > config since the name doesn't contain any
> > > special
> > > > > > > >> characters
> > > > > > > >> > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > quoting.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Ted Yu <
> > > > > > > >> yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Thanks for the quick response.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> It seems the config following --delete-config
> > > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > quoted.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Cheers
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Rajini
> > > Sivaram
> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Ted,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Have added an example for --delete-config.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Ted Yu <
> > > > > > > >> > > yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > bq. There is a --delete-config option
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Consider adding a sample with the above
> > > > option
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> the KIP.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Rajini
> > > > > Sivaram
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi Ted,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Thank you for reviewing the KIP.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > *Would decreasing network/IO threads be
> > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > >> ?*
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Yes, As described in the KIP, some
> > > > > connections
> > > > > > > >> will be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > closed if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > network
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > thread count is reduced (and
> > > reconnections
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > processed on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > remaining
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > threads)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > *What if some keys in configs are not
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > Set
> > > > > > > >> > > returned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > by reconfigurableConfigs()? Would
> > > exception
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> thrown ?*
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > No, *reconfigurableConfigs() *will be
> > > used
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> decide
> > > > > > > >> > > which
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > notified when a configuration update is
> > > > > made*.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > **reconfigure(Map<String,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > ?>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > configs)* will be invoked with all of
> > the
> > > > > > > >> configured
> > > > > > > >> > > > > configs of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > broker,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >  similar to  *configure(Map<String, ?>
> > > > > > configs).
> > > > > > > >> *For
> > > > > > > >> > > > > example,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > *SslChannelBuilder* is made
> > > reconfigurable,
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > >> > > just
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > SslFactory with the latest configs,
> > using
> > > > the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > >> code
> > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *configure()*.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > We avoid reconfiguring
> > *SslChannelBuilder
> > > > > > > >> > > *unnecessarily*,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > *for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> example
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > a topic config has changed, since topic
> > > > > configs
> > > > > > > >> are not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > listed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > *SslChannelBuilder#**
> > > > > reconfigurableConfigs().*
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > *The sample commands for
> > > bin/kafka-configs
> > > > > > > include
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > '--add-config'.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > there be '--remove-config' ?*
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > bin/kafka-configs.sh is an existing
> > tool
> > > > > whose
> > > > > > > >> > > parameters
> > > > > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > modified by this KIP. There is a
> > > > > > --delete-config
> > > > > > > >> option.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > *ssl.keystore.password appears a few
> > > lines
> > > > > > above.
> > > > > > > >> Would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > there be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > issue with mixture of connections (with
> > > old
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > password) ?*
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > No, passwords (and the actual keystore)
> > > are
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > >> used
> > > > > > > >> > > during
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > authentication. Any channel created
> > using
> > > > the
> > > > > > old
> > > > > > > >> > > SslFactory
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > impacted.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Rajini
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Ted
> > Yu <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > bq. (e.g. increase network/IO
> > threads)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Would decreasing network/IO threads
> > be
> > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > >> ?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > bq.     void reconfigure(Map<String,
> > ?>
> > > > > > > configs);
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > What if some keys in configs are not
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > Set
> > > > > > > >> > > returned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > by
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > reconfigurableConfigs()
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > ? Would exception be thrown ?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > If so, please specify which exception
> > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> thrown.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > The sample commands for
> > > bin/kafka-configs
> > > > > > > include
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > '--add-config'.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Would there be '--remove-config' ?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > bq. Existing connections will not be
> > > > > > affected,
> > > > > > > >> new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > connections
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > new keystore.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > ssl.keystore.password appears a few
> > > lines
> > > > > > > above.
> > > > > > > >> Would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > there
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> any
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > issue
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > with mixture of connections (with old
> > > and
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > >> > > password) ?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:57 AM,
> > Rajini
> > > > > > > Sivaram <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > rajinisivaram@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I have submitted KIP-226 to enable
> > > > > dynamic
> > > > > > > >> > > > > reconfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > brokers
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > without restart:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > >> > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 226+-+Dynamic+Broker+Configuration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The KIP proposes to extend the
> > > current
> > > > > > > dynamic
> > > > > > > >> > > > > replication
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > quota
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > configuration for brokers to
> > support
> > > > > > dynamic
> > > > > > > >> > > > > reconfiguration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > limited
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > set of configuration options that
> > are
> > > > > > > typically
> > > > > > > >> > > updated
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > lifetime
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > of a broker.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Feedback and suggestions are
> > welcome.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you...
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Rajini
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >

Mime
View raw message