Hi Christo, > I would then opt for moving information from DisableRemoteTopic within the StopReplicas API which will then disappear in KRaft world as it is already scheduled for deprecation. What do you think?
Sounds good to me. Thanks. Luke On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 6:46 PM Christo Lolov <christolo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Heya Luke! > > I thought a bit more about it and I reached the same conclusion as you for > 2 as a follow-up from 1. In other words, in KRaft world I don't think the > controller needs to wait for acknowledgements for the brokers. All we care > about is that the leader (who is responsible for archiving/deleting data in > tiered storage) knows about the change and applies it properly. If there is > a leadership change halfway through the operation then the new leader still > needs to apply the message from the state topic and we know that a > disable-message will be applied before a reenablement-message. I will > change the KIP later today/tomorrow morning to reflect this reasoning. > > However, with this I believe that introducing a new API just for > Zookeeper-based clusters (i.e. DisableRemoteTopic) becomes a bit of an > overkill. I would then opt for moving information from DisableRemoteTopic > within the StopReplicas API which will then disappear in KRaft world as it > is already scheduled for deprecation. What do you think? > > Best, > Christo > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 07:59, Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Christo, > > > > 1. I agree with Doguscan that in KRaft mode, the controller won't send > RPCs > > to the brokers (except in the migration path). > > So, I think we could adopt the similar way we did to > `AlterReplicaLogDirs` > > ( > > KIP-858 > > < > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-858%3A+Handle+JBOD+broker+disk+failure+in+KRaft#KIP858:HandleJBODbrokerdiskfailureinKRaft-Intra-brokerreplicamovement > > >) > > that let the broker notify controller any update, instead of controller > to > > broker. And once the controller receives all the complete requests from > > brokers, it'll enter "Disabled" state. WDYT? > > > > 2. Why should we wait until all brokers to respond before moving to > > "Disabled" state in "KRaft mode"? > > Currently, only the leader node does the remote log upload/fetch tasks, > so > > does that mean the controller only need to make sure the leader completes > > the stopPartition? > > If during the leader node stopPartition process triggered leadership > > change, then the new leader should receive and apply the configRecord > > update before the leadership change record based on the KRaft design, > which > > means there will be no gap that the follower node becomes the leader and > > starting doing unexpected upload/fetch tasks, right? > > I agree we should make sure in ZK mode, all brokers are completed the > > stopPartitions before moving to "Disabled" state because ZK node watcher > is > > working in a separate thread. But not sure about KRaft mode. > > > > Thanks. > > Luke > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 4:14 PM Christo Lolov <christolo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Heya everyone! > > > > > > re: Doguscan > > > > > > I believe the answer to 101 needs a bit more discussion. As far as I > > know, > > > tiered storage today has methods to update a metadata of a segment to > say > > > "hey, I would like this deleted", but actual deletion is left to plugin > > > implementations (or any background cleaners). In other words, there is > no > > > "immediate" deletion. In this KIP, we would like to continue doing the > > same > > > if the retention policy is set to delete. So I believe the answer is > > > actually that a) we will update the metadata of the segments to mark > them > > > as deleted and b) we will advance the log start offset. Any deletion of > > > actual files will still be delegated to plugin implementations. I > believe > > > this is further supported by "*remote.log.disable.policy=delete:* Logs > > that > > > are archived in the remote storage will not be part of the contiguous > > > "active" log and will be deleted asynchronously as part of the > > disablement > > > process" > > > > > > Following from the above, I believe for 102 it is fine to allow setting > > of > > > remote.log.disable.policy on a disabled topic in much the same way we > > allow > > > other remote-related configurations to be set on a topic (i.e. > > > local.retention.*) - it just won't have an effect. Granted, I do > believe > > we > > > should restrict the policy being changed while a disablement is > ongoing. > > > > > > re: Satish and Kamal > > > > > > 104, 1 and 2 are fair asks, I will work with Doguscan to update the KIP > > > with the information! > > > > > > Best, > > > Christo > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 10:31, Doğuşcan Namal <namal.dogus...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Satish, I will try to answer as much as I can and the others could > > > chime > > > > in with further details. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *101. For remote.log.disable.policy=delete: Does it delete the remote > > log > > > > data immediately and the data in remote storage will not be taken > into > > > > account by any replica? That means log-start-offset is moved to the > > > earlier > > > > local-log-start-offset.* > > > > *Exactly. RemoteLogData will be deleted immediately. * > > > > *So before the deletion starts we move LogStart offset to > > > > LocalLogStartOffset to ensure that no RemoteLog will be accessed > after > > > that > > > > point.* > > > > > > > > > > > > * 102. Can we update the remote.log.disable.policy after tiered > storage > > > is > > > > disabled on a topic?* > > > > > > > > *This is a good point. I think we should not allow modifying this > > > > configuration* > > > > *because changing the policy from Deletion to Retain when there is an > > > > ongoing Deletion will result in an undefined behaviour and where we > > > retain > > > > half of the remote log and delete the other half.* > > > > > > > > * 103. Do we plan to add any metrics related to this feature?* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Any recommendations?* > > > > *We may emit a gauge showing the enablement state of a topic but we > > could > > > > gather that info from the logs as well.* > > > > *The total duration for remote topic deletion could be added as well > > but > > > > this is more of a metric for the RemotePartitionRemover itself.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *104. Please add configuration details about copier thread pool, > > > expiration > > > > thread pool and the migration of the existing > > > > RemoteLogManagerScheduledThreadPool.* > > > > > > > > *Will add the details.* > > > > > > > > 105. How is the behaviour with topic or partition deletion request > > > > handled when tiered storage disablement request is still being > > > > processed on a topic? > > > > > > > > *If the disablement policy is Delete then a successive topic deletion > > > > request is going to be a NOOP because RemoteLogs is already being > > > deleted.* > > > > *If the disablement policy is Retain, then we only moved the > > > LogStartOffset > > > > and didn't touch RemoteLogs anyway, so the delete topic request will > > > > result* > > > > > > > > *in the initiation of RemoteLog deletion.* > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 at 18:21, Kamal Chandraprakash < > > > > kamal.chandraprak...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! Overall the KIP looks good and covered most of > > the > > > > > items. > > > > > > > > > > 1. Could you explain how the brokers will handle the > > DisableRemoteTopic > > > > API > > > > > request? > > > > > > > > > > 2. Who will initiate the controller interaction sequence? Does the > > > > > controller listens for > > > > > topic config updates and initiate the disablement? > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Kamal > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 4:40 PM Satish Duggana < > > > satish.dugg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Mehari, Divij, Christo etal for the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > I had an initial review of the KIP and left the below comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > 101. For remote.log.disable.policy=delete: > > > > > > Does it delete the remote log data immediately and the data in > > remote > > > > > > storage will not be taken into account by any replica? That means > > > > > > log-start-offset is moved to the earlier local-log-start-offset. > > > > > > > > > > > > 102. Can we update the remote.log.disable.policy after tiered > > storage > > > > > > is disabled on a topic? > > > > > > > > > > > > 103. Do we plan to add any metrics related to this feature? > > > > > > > > > > > > 104. Please add configuration details about copier thread pool, > > > > > > expiration thread pool and the migration of the existing > > > > > > RemoteLogManagerScheduledThreadPool. > > > > > > > > > > > > 105. How is the behaviour with topic or partition deletion > request > > > > > > handled when tiered storage disablement request is still being > > > > > > processed on a topic? > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Satish. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 at 13:34, Doğuşcan Namal < > > > namal.dogus...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Christo and Luke, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the KRaft section of the KIP requires slight > improvement. > > > The > > > > > > metadata propagation in KRaft is handled by the RAFT layer > instead > > of > > > > > > sending Controller -> Broker RPCs. In fact, KIP-631 deprecated > > these > > > > > RPCs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will come up with some recommendations on how we could > improve > > > that > > > > > > one but until then, @Luke please feel free to review the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Satish, if we want this to make it to Kafka 3.8 I believe we > > need > > > to > > > > > > aim to get the KIP approved in the following weeks otherwise it > > will > > > > slip > > > > > > and we can not support it in Zookeeper mode. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also would like to better understand what is the community's > > > stand > > > > > for > > > > > > adding a new feature for Zookeeper since it is marked as > deprecated > > > > > already. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 13:42, Christo Lolov < > > > christolo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Heya, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I do have some time to put into this, but to be honest I am > > still > > > > > after > > > > > > >> reviews of the KIP itself :) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> After the latest changes it ought to be detailing both a > > Zookeeper > > > > > > approach > > > > > > >> and a KRaft approach. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Do you have any thoughts on how it could be improved or > should I > > > > > start a > > > > > > >> voting thread? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Best, > > > > > > >> Christo > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 06:12, Luke Chen <show...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Hi Christo, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Any update with this KIP? > > > > > > >> > If you don't have time to complete it, I can collaborate > with > > > you > > > > to > > > > > > work > > > > > > >> > on it. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks. > > > > > > >> > Luke > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:38 PM Satish Duggana < > > > > > > satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Hi Christo, > > > > > > >> > > Thanks for volunteering to contribute to the KIP > > discussion. I > > > > > > suggest > > > > > > >> > > considering this KIP for both ZK and KRaft as it will be > > > helpful > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > > this feature to be available in 3.8.0 running with ZK > > > clusters. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > Satish. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 19:04, Christo Lolov < > > > > > christolo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hello! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I volunteer to get this KIP moving forward and > implemented > > > in > > > > > > Apache > > > > > > >> > > Kafka > > > > > > >> > > > 3.8. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I have caught up with Mehari offline and we have agreed > > that > > > > > given > > > > > > >> > Apache > > > > > > >> > > > Kafka 4.0 being around the corner we would like to > propose > > > > this > > > > > > feature > > > > > > >> > > > only for KRaft clusters. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Any and all reviews and comments are welcome! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Best, > > > > > > >> > > > Christo > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 at 09:44, Doğuşcan Namal < > > > > > > namal.dogus...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi everyone, any progress on the status of this KIP? > > > Overall > > > > > > looks > > > > > > >> > > good to > > > > > > >> > > > > me but I wonder whether we still need to support it > for > > > > > > Zookeeper > > > > > > >> > mode > > > > > > >> > > > > given that it will be deprecated in the next 3 months. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On 2023/07/21 20:16:46 "Beyene, Mehari" wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > >> > > > > > I would like to start a discussion on KIP-950: > Tiered > > > > > Storage > > > > > > >> > > Disablement > > > > > > >> > > > > ( > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-950%3A++Tiered+Storage+Disablement > > > > > > >> > > > > ). > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > This KIP proposes adding the ability to disable and > > > > > re-enable > > > > > > >> > tiered > > > > > > >> > > > > storage on a topic. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > > Mehari > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
