Thanks, Ismael. I think you are proposing a pair of mutually exclusive args --process.roles and --node.id, right? I agree that is more user-friendly than the --required-config arg, and it comes at the possible expense of generality. So that’s the tradeoff between the two, I think. No other config comes to mind now that we’ve identified these two. I think the two specific and mutually exclusive parameters would be the way to go unless someone else identifies still more options that people might want.
Did I get that right, or were you proposing something different? Ron > On Sep 30, 2023, at 10:42 AM, Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for the KIP. I think this approach based on configs is a bit too > open ended and not very user friendly. Why don't we simply provide flags > for the things a user may care about? So far, it seems like we have two > good candidates (node id and process role). Are there any others? > > Ismael > >> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 6:19 PM Hailey Ni <h...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: >> >> Hi Ron, >> >> I think you made a great point, making the "name" arbitrary instead of >> hard-coding it will make the functionality much more flexible. I've updated >> the KIP and the code accordingly. Thanks for the great idea! >> >> Thanks, >> Hailey >> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 2:34 PM Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks, Hailey. Is there a reason to restrict it to just >>> process.roles and node.id? Someone might want to do >>> "--required-config any.name=whatever.value", for example, and at first >>> glance I don't see a reason why the implementation should be any >>> different -- it seems it would probably be easier to not have to worry >>> about restricting to specific cases, actually. WDYT? >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 5:12 PM Hailey Ni <h...@confluent.io.invalid> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Updated. Please let me know if you have any additional comments. Thank >>> you! >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 3:02 PM Hailey Ni <h...@confluent.io> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ron. Thanks for the response. I agree with your point. I'll make >> the >>>>> corresponding changes in the KIP and KAFKA-15471 >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-15471>. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 1:40 PM Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Hailey. No, I just looked, and zookeeper-server-stop does not >> have >>>>>> any facility to be specific about which ZK nodes to signal. So >>>>>> providing the ability in kafka-server-stop to be more specific than >>>>>> just "signal all controllers" or "signal all brokers" would be a >> bonus >>>>>> and therefore not necessarily required. But if it is easy to >> achieve >>>>>> and doesn't add any additional cognitive load -- and at first glance >>>>>> it does seem so -- we should probably just support it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ron >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 6:15 PM Hailey Ni <h...@confluent.io.invalid >>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Ron, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you very much for the comment. I think it makes sense to me >>> that >>>>>> we >>>>>>> provide an even more specific way to kill individual >>>>>> controllers/brokers. >>>>>>> I have one question: does the command line for ZooKeeper cluster >>> provide >>>>>>> such a way to kill individual controllers/brokers? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Hailey >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 11:01 AM Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com >>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP, Hailey. It will be nice to provide some >>>>>>>> fine-grained control for when people running the broker and >>> controller >>>>>>>> this way want to stop just one of them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One thing that occurs to me is that in a development environment >>>>>>>> someone might want to run multiple controllers and multiple >>> brokers >>>>>>>> all on the same box, and in that case they might want to >> actually >>> stop >>>>>>>> just one controller or just one broker instead of all of them. >>> So I'm >>>>>>>> wondering if maybe instead of supporting kafka-server-stop >>>>>>>> [--process.roles <value>] we might want to instead support >>>>>>>> kafka-server-stop [--required-config <name=value>]. If someone >>> wanted >>>>>>>> to stop any/all controllers and not touch the broker(s) they >> could >>>>>>>> still achieve that by invoking kafka-server-stop >> --required-config >>>>>>>> process.roles=controller. But if they did want to stop a >>> particular >>>>>>>> controller they could then also achieve that via >> kafka-server-stop >>>>>>>> --required-config node.id=1 (for example). What do you think? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 5:56 PM Hailey Ni >>> <h...@confluent.io.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to start the discussion about *KIP-979: Allow >>>>>> independently >>>>>>>>> stop KRaft controllers or brokers* < >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-979%3A+Allow+independently+stop+KRaft+controllers+or+brokers >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It proposes adding an optional field "--process.roles <value>" >>> in >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> script to allow users to independently stop either KRaft >> broker >>>>>> processes >>>>>>>>> or controller processes. While in the past, all processes were >>>>>> killed >>>>>>>> using >>>>>>>>> a single script. >>>>>>>>> Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Much >>>>>>>> appreciated. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards, >>>>>>>>> Hailey >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>
