Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-kafka-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-kafka-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C14EE854 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:02:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 20145 invoked by uid 500); 11 Feb 2013 11:02:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-kafka-users-archive@kafka.apache.org Received: (qmail 19615 invoked by uid 500); 11 Feb 2013 11:01:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@kafka.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@kafka.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@kafka.apache.org Received: (qmail 19555 invoked by uid 99); 11 Feb 2013 11:01:54 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:01:54 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of michal.haris@imagini.net designates 209.85.215.44 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.44] (HELO mail-la0-f44.google.com) (209.85.215.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:01:50 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id eb20so5681316lab.31 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:01:27 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=3bWIKz6Frz08QMhO3r6uEExhO3oEs8+jv+ry3XZnjeU=; b=i4mE1AqwdlnTPdnrMQ4qpQc9ZdGqCXiEaSadGZ+srngArlM5QzBMGSOyhoyNLwv2WE itHPJ+D8ClhA/MuizUfO1q/x3Mn0/FBaGz4OEcEr/yYBfwBg4S5+iyA6XBkVpypQajl6 X+VS2KZvtVtWWgP4yNyYZ27EoThp8j7jA7aMX87JNOW2ne0yVrOMLKNldq47NRz6XUZd xKZAm0vBb53nj2RHQ33sTRJ6skAIWFRjDl0m7zINVp0i98YWIXzVIVFT03ZbRlCXEdCe NMVJRCY76wDUtta2TavcjmNOYkFiJYo2CM2auEHFunkLjN0OCY8UEu6j2/iJtbML6vVE qG9A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.125.237 with SMTP id mt13mr12607877lab.45.1360580487523; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:01:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.54.141 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:01:27 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [82.71.191.141] Received: by 10.112.54.141 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 03:01:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:01:27 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: kafka replication blog From: Michal Haris To: users@kafka.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04426ccca5ae4704d570d480 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmUAmPyCJpUm18+gz8AtcQ7gQbiJUyNcyhj0ofcltbkwtlb4+qHx0f+BmIjC56GyWVHDMgN X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --f46d04426ccca5ae4704d570d480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Thanks Jun, makes sense. On Feb 8, 2013 4:00 PM, "Jun Rao" wrote: > That's right. If you are partitioning by key, that means you insist a > message has to go to a certain partition, whether it's available or not. > So, if a partition is not available, we will drop the message for the > partition in the async mode and consistently throw an exception to the > caller in the sync mode. > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Michal Haris >wrote: > > > So if the produces are partitioning by key we have to have replication if > > we dont want messages to get lost when partition goes down l right ? > > Thanks > > On Feb 8, 2013 5:12 AM, "Jun Rao" wrote: > > > > > We have fixed this issue in 0.8. Withreplication factor 1, if the > > producer > > > doesn't care about partitioning by key, messages will be sent to > > partitions > > > that are currently available. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Michal Haris < > michal.haris@visualdna.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Same here, summary was need as we have a fairly large ecosystem of > > > multiple > > > > 0.7.2 clusters and I am planning to test upgrade to 0.8. > > > > However, one thing creeping at the back of my mind regarding 0.8 is > > > > something i have spotted in one thread few weeks ago namely that the > > > > rebalance behaviour of producers is not as robust as in 0.7.x without > > > > replication and i remeber there was no designed solution at the time > - > > > any > > > > news here ? Basically our usecase doesn't require replication but > > logical > > > > offsets and some other things introduced would solve some problems. > > > > On Feb 7, 2013 7:11 PM, "Vaibhav Puranik" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Same here. Thanks a lot Jun. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Vaibhav > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Felix GV > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Jun! > > > > > > > > > > > > I hadn't been following the discussions regarding 0.8 and > > replication > > > > > for a > > > > > > little while and this was a great post to refresh my memory and > get > > > up > > > > to > > > > > > speed on the current replication architecture's design. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Felix > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jun Rao > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just posted the following blog on Kafka replication. This may > > > > answer > > > > > > some > > > > > > > of the questions that a few people have asked in the mailing > list > > > > > before. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://engineering.linkedin.com/kafka/intra-cluster-replication-apache-kafka > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --f46d04426ccca5ae4704d570d480--