I see that, when a new topic is created, two metadata records, a TopicRecord (just the name and id of the topic) and a PartitionRecord (more like LeaderAndIsr, with leader id and replica ids for the partition) are created. While creating the topic, log entries for both the records need to be committed in RAFT core. Will it need something like a MultiOperationRecord in zookeeper. Then, we can have a single log entry with both the records, and the create topic request can be fulfilled atomically when both the records are committed?
Thanks, Unmesh On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 6:57 AM Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> wrote: > HI Colin. Thanks for the KIP. Here is some feedback and various > questions. > > "*Controller processes will listen on a separate port from brokers. This > will be true even when the broker and controller are co-located in the same > JVM*". I assume it is possible that the port numbers could be the same when > using separate JVMs (i.e. broker uses port 9192 and controller also uses > port 9192). I think it would be clearer to state this along these > lines: "Controller > nodes will listen on a port, and the controller port must differ from any > port that a broker in the same JVM is listening on. In other words, a > controller and a broker node, when in the same JVM, do not share ports" > > I think the sentence "*In the realm of ACLs, this translates to controllers > requiring CLUSTERACTION on CLUSTER for all operations*" is confusing. It > feels to me that you can just delete it. Am I missing something here? > > The KIP states "*The metadata will be stored in memory on all the active > controllers.*" Can there be multiple active controllers? Should it > instead read "The metadata will be stored in memory on all potential > controllers." (or something like that)? > > KIP-595 states "*we have assumed the name __cluster_metadata for this > topic, but this is not a formal part of this proposal*". This KIP-631 > states "*Metadata changes need to be persisted to the __metadata log before > we propagate them to the other nodes in the cluster. This means waiting > for the metadata log's last stable offset to advance to the offset of the > change.*" Are we here formally defining "__metadata" as the topic name, > and should these sentences refer to "__metadata topic" rather than > "__metadata log"? What are the "other nodes in the cluster" that are > referred to? These are not controller nodes but brokers, right? If so, > then should we say "before we propagate them to the brokers"? Technically > we have a controller cluster and a broker cluster -- two separate clusters, > correct? (Even though we could potentially share JVMs and therefore > require no additional processes.). If the statement is referring to nodes > in both clusters then maybe we should state "before we propagate them to > the other nodes in the controller cluster or to brokers." > > "*The controller may have several of these uncommitted changes in flight at > any given time. In essence, the controller's in-memory state is always a > little bit in the future compared to the current state. This allows the > controller to continue doing things while it waits for the previous changes > to be committed to the Raft log.*" Should the three references above be to > the active controller rather than just the controller? > > "*Therefore, the controller must not make this future state "visible" to > the rest of the cluster until it has been made persistent – that is, until > it becomes current state*". Again I wonder if this should refer to "active" > controller, and indicate "anyone else" as opposed to "the rest of the > cluster" since we are talking about 2 clusters here? > > "*When the active controller decides that it itself should create a > snapshot, it will first try to give up the leadership of the Raft quorum.*" > Why? Is it necessary to state this? It seems like it might be an > implementation detail rather than a necessary constraint/requirement that > we declare publicly and would have to abide by. > > "*It will reject brokers whose metadata is too stale*". Why? An example > might be helpful here. > > "*it may lose subsequent conflicts if its broker epoch is stale*" This is > the first time a "broker epoch" is mentioned. I am assuming it is the > controller epoch communicated to it (if any). It would be good to > introduce it/explicitly state what it is before referring to it. > > Ron > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:48 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I posted a KIP about how the quorum-based controller envisioned in > KIP-500 > > will work. Please take a look here: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/4RV4CQ > > > > best, > > Colin > > >
