It will probably be a good idea to create sub-tasks to a JIRA... and have this being developed as part of a different branch before we merge into master.
What do you think? That way we can have more people participating on discussions / contributing to the code in parallel. On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 8:32 AM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ceph is difficult to install I agree. But it has nothing to do with the > notion of a thing manager instead of a broker. > > > All you need is an option on CLI such as ./artemis node-manager > > > > You are replacing a broker by s manager. Nothing different. > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 4:28 AM Jiri Daněk <jda...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 4:02 PM Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Personally I wouldn't use Zookeeper, I think there are better options. Also >> > looks like Kafka are replacing it as well. Saying that, it doesn't really >> > matter what is used, the main thing is we need to remove the burden of >> > providing consensus away from the broker. >> >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-500%3A+Replace+ZooKeeper+with+a+Self-Managed+Metadata+Quorum >> >> There is a blog from person who prototyped replacing Zookeeper with >> Atomix.io. >> https://medium.com/@lukasz.antoniak/apache-kafka-leaves-the-zoo-bef529ba82b7. >> It is afaik independent work to the KIP-500, as the proposal does not say >> Atomix.io is to be used. The blog links to other reimplementations/forks; >> one that replaces Zookeeper with etcd, and another one that does something >> with Go and Raft. >> >> Rabbitmq has implemented Raft in Erlang and they now have "mirrored queues" >> (legacy, the pre-raft version) and Quorum queues, the new thing ( >> https://www.rabbitmq.com/quorum-queues.html) There is a presentation that >> tries to explain it to people who don't know RabbitMQ >> https://www.slideshare.net/Pivotal/implementing-raft-in-rabbitmq. For some >> reason, they wanted to vote up a leader for each queue separately, and then >> they had to make it perform well. >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 4:02 PM Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I think we should have a management component, that runs outside of >> > the broker and would manage quorum. >> > >> > That way you can have the quorum running outside of the broker itself. >> > which would improve the need of multiple brokers to manage the quorum. >> > You just need Quorum Managers in distinct places. >> > >> > I had recently worked with a software called Ceph... And Ceph has the >> > concept of managers working away from their "broker" (it's not a >> > broker.. it's a DB, but in a sense it's the same concept here). I >> > think we should do the same. >> > >> >> One of the reasons for KIP-500 is simplification of deployment. From this >> point of view, taking inspiration for ActiveMQ from Ceph, which is >> notoriously hard to install, at least in folk memory, could be a step back. >> Also see section Rejected Alternatives -> Pluggable Consensus in the KIP. >> >> Btw, Kafka has controller brokers and ordinary brokers. Sounds a bit like >> Ceph manager.... Also, a Kafka broker is a DB of sorts (of events). >> -- >> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards >> Jiri Daněk > > -- > Clebert Suconic -- Clebert Suconic
