Mailing-List: contact users-help@kafka.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@kafka.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of michal.haris@imagini.net
 designates 209.85.215.41 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFbh0Q2Z9_ku-jo3iqiULAxoOK_pGhYHQM+a1M8qqjc5D6hmkA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAFbh0Q2PNowTk=XwtsxNGPLBEQEirz6VLS1JkXUu4cMDo5DDzw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAECHK7uao_Sh7OJz0VFv0Hj66sH5jJ88pBCug2+=2ARgqCgC=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADSeYa2a-7VA+m3Gq8kfvsYZuxgcwRn1ScUqSUN=aVOXdYaaXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJhHXPPrWj5JNhiQXZ-fm71TqTh=apfMTJjbLa=KuYwFYZFzVQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFbh0Q2Z9_ku-jo3iqiULAxoOK_pGhYHQM+a1M8qqjc5D6hmkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 09:41:02 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CAJhHXPPM+BqHHO00+g=KjE3_3fmsjpu1peeivG3kVEwqiXD82A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: kafka replication blog
From: Michal Haris <michal.haris@visualdna.com>
To: users@kafka.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0401fd0f91238c04d5335bc3

--f46d0401fd0f91238c04d5335bc3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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" <junrao@gmail.com> 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" <vpuranik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Same here. Thanks a lot Jun.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Vaibhav
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Felix GV <felix@mate1inc.com> 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 <junrao@gmail.com> 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--f46d0401fd0f91238c04d5335bc3--