On Fri, Jul 21, 2023, at 09:43, José Armando García Sancio wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP Colin. Apologies if some of these points have
> already been made. I have not followed the discussion closely:
>
> 1. Re: Periodically, each controller will check that the controller
> registration for its ID is as expected
>
> Does this need to be periodic? Can't the controller schedule this RPC,
> retry etc, when it finds that the incarnation ID doesn't match its
> own?
>

Hi José,

Thanks for the reviews.

David had the same question. I agree that it should be event-driven rather than 
periodic (except for retries, etc.)

>
> 2. Did you consider including the active controller's epoch in the
> ControllerRegistrationRequest?
>
> This would allow the active controller to reject registration from
> controllers that are not part of the active quorum and don't know the
> latest controller epoch. This should mitigate some of the concerns you
> raised in bullet point 1.
>

Good idea. I will add the active controller epoch to the registration request.

>
> 3. Which endpoint will the inactive controllers use to send the
> ControllerRegistrationRequest?
>
> Will it use the first endpoint described in the cluster metadata
> controller registration record? Or would it use the endpoint described
> in the server configuration at controller.quorum.voters?
>

They will use the endpoint in controller.quorum.voters. In general, the 
endpoints from the registration are only used for responding to 
DESCRIBE_CLUSTER. Since, after all, we may not even have the registration 
endpoints when we start up.

>
> 4. Re: Raft integration in the rejected alternatives
>
> Yes, The KRaft layer needs to solve a similar problem like endpoint
> discovery to support dynamic controller membership change. As you
> point out the requirements are different and the set of information
> that needs to be tracked is different. I think it is okay to use a
> different solution for each of these problems.

Yeah that was my feeling too. Thanks for taking a look.

regards,
Colin

>
> Thanks!
> -- 
> -José

Reply via email to