Gwen - just my reading of what we could expect from what you had described so far. Without having gone into implementation details, there didn't seem to be anything that would block the ability to run two ports with the same protocol configuration, at least from the way you proposed to represent it in Zookeeper. I'd just like to not go down the path of using something like a map for representing the protocol list that would eliminate this possibility, unless there's a pretty good reason to do so.
-Todd On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hey Todd, > > You say "lose the ability" - you mean this ability actually exist now? > Or is this something you hope the new patch will support? > > Gwen > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Todd Palino <tpal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Leaving aside the rest of this, on #1, while I consider being able to > > advertise the ports a good idea, I don't want to lose the ability for > > maintaining multiple ports with the same protocol. For example, being > able > > to have 2 plaintext ports, one that only brokers communicate over, and > one > > that general clients use. The ability to segregate this traffic is useful > > in a number of situations, over and above other controls like quotas, and > > is relatively easy to do once we support multiple ports. > > > > -Todd > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi, Gwen, > >> > >> Thanks for writing up the wiki. Some comments below. > >> > >> 1. To make it more general, should we support a binding and an > advertised > >> host for each protocol (e.g. plaintext, ssl, etc)? We will also need to > >> figure out how to specify the wildcard binding host. > >> > >> 2. Broker format change in ZK > >> The broker registration in ZK needs to store the host/port for all > >> protocols. We will need to bump up the version of the broker > registration > >> data. Since this is an intra-cluster protocol change, we need an extra > >> config for rolling upgrades. So, in the first step, each broker is > upgraded > >> and is ready to parse brokers registered in the new format, but not > >> registering using the new format yet. In the second step, when that new > >> config is enabled, the broker will register using the new format. > >> > >> 3. Wire protocol changes. Currently, the broker info is used in the > >> following requests/responses: TopicMetadataResponse , > >> ConsumerMetadataResponse, LeaderAndIsrRequest and > UpdateMetadataRequest. > >> 3.1 TopicMetadataResponse and ConsumerMetadataResponse: > >> These two are used between the clients and the broker. I am not sure > that > >> we need to make a wire protocol change for them. Currently, the protocol > >> includes a single host/port pair in those responses. Based on the type > of > >> the port on which the request is sent, it seems that we can just pick > the > >> corresponding host and port to include in the response. > >> 3.2 UpdateMetadataRequest: > >> This is used between the controller and the broker. Since each broker > needs > >> to cache the host/port of all protocols, we need to make a wire protocol > >> change. We also need to change the broker format in MetadataCache > >> accordingly. This is also an intra-cluster protocol change. So the > upgrade > >> path will need to follow that in item 2. > >> 3.3 LeaderAndIsrRequest: > >> This is also used between the controller and the broker. The receiving > >> broker uses the host/port of the leader replica to send the fetch > request. > >> I am not sure if we need a wire protocol change in this case. I was > >> imagining that we will just add a new broker config, sth like > >> replication.socket.protocol. Base on this config, the controller will > pick > >> the right host/port to include in the request. > >> > >> 4. Should we plan to support security just on the new java clients? > >> Supporting security in both the old and the new clients adds more work > and > >> gives people less incentive to migrate off the old clients. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Jun > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Everyone, > >> > > >> > One of the pre-requisites we have for supporting multiple security > >> > protocols (SSL, Kerberos) is to support them on separate ports. > >> > > >> > This is done in KAFKA-1684 (The SSL Patch), but that patch addresses > >> > several different issues - Multiple ports, enriching the channels, SSL > >> > implementation - which makes it more challenging to review and to > test. > >> > > >> > I'd like to split this into 3 separate patches: multi-port brokers, > >> > enriching SocketChannel, and the actual security implementations. > >> > > >> > Since even just adding support for multiple listeners per broker is > >> > somewhat involved and touches multiple components, I wrote a short > design > >> > document that covers the necessary changes and the upgrade process: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Multiple+Listeners+for+Kafka+Brokers > >> > > >> > Comments are more than welcome :) > >> > > >> > If this is acceptable, hope to have a patch ready in few days. > >> > > >> > Gwen Shapira > >> > > >> >
