Hey Ismael, Thanks for the explanation Ismael. Please see my comment inline.
On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Hi Dong, > > Sorry for the delay, I was offline for 24 hours. Thankfully Sumit was > around to explain the reasoning for the current approach. From reading the > thread, it seems like it may help to reiterate a few important goals for > the auditing use case where there is a requirement to associate a message > with a particular cluster: > > 1. Each cluster id should be unique. > 2. The cluster id should be immutable. If the cluster id can be changed > as a matter of course, it's hard to provide any guarantees. Assigning a > meaningful name for the id makes it more likely that you may need to > change > it whereas decoupling the immutable id from the > meaningful/human-readable > name eliminates the issue. > I don't think have a human-readable name is equivalent to a meaningful name. It is not true that a human readable name makes it more likely you want to change it. Look, every city has a human readable name and we don't worry about changing its name. The conference room in any company has a human readable name instead of a random id. For the same reason you can name a cluster as Yosemite and don't have to change it in the future. By immutable I think you are saying that we should prevent people from changing cluster.id. However, this KIP doesn't really prevent this from happening -- user can delete znode and restart kafka to change cluster.id. Therefore the requirement is not satisfied anyway. I am also not sure why you want to prevent people from changing cluster.id after reading the motivation section of this KIP. Is there any motivation or use-case for this requirement? > 3. Every cluster should have an id. An optional cluster id makes the > downstream code more complex and makes the feature less useful. > It is not clear why it will make downstream code would be more complex and feature less useful if we provide a default cluster.id here. For users who are not interested in this feature, they can use the cluster.id and all downstream application will not be affected. For users who need this feature, they can configure a unique human readable cluster.id for their clusters. In this case the downstream application will have the same complexity as with the approach in this KIP. Did I miss something? Here we can assume user can configure unique human-readable cluster.id in the config since it is discussed in the Concern 1 below. > 4. No new mandatory configs should be introduced. We generally avoid > doing adding mandatory configs as they make it harder to get started > with > Kafka and upgrades become more complex. I've added this to the KIP as it > was previously missing. Thanks for the reminder. > > With that in mind, let's look at your proposal. > > When Kafka starts, it reads cluster.id from config. And then it reads > > cluster.id from zookeeper. > > - if the cluster.id is not specified in zookeeper, create the znode. > > - if the cluster.id is specified in zookeeper > > - if the cluster.id in znode is the same as the that in config, > proceed > > - Otherwise, broker startup fails and it reports error. Note that we > > don't make this change after the startup. > > > The concerns I have are: > > 1. The same id can be given to two different clusters and we have no > easy way to detect this (as each cluster may be using a completely > different ZooKeeper ensemble). Affects goal 1. > Right, there is no easy way to detect this automatically with Kafka. But this is not a requirement to automatically detect violation of uniqueness in the first place. SRE can manually make sure that the unique cluster.id is given to each cluster in the broker config. This doesn't seem too onerous as compared to the other effort SRE is doing to configure the correct value of zookeeper in broker config. It should also be less onerous than the effort needed to track the random cluster.id for every cluster so that you can recover it if the znode is deleted. Look, if users want to have unique cluster.id across a bunch of clusters, it is probably the case that the user wants to monitor/audit all these clusters in a central place. In this case the SRE who managers the monitor/audit service is probably managing clusters config in a central place, i.e. they should have a list of clusters together with there zookeeper url, bootstrap server url. They probably already have a name for these cluster so that they can refer to a cluster when talking to each other. It should be easy to provide a cluster.id in this list. > 2. If users choose a meaningful name for the cluster id, they may end up > with the choice of having to live with a misleading id or having to > change > it (with the respective bad implications) as cluster usage evolves. > Affects > goal 2. > Please see my reply to requirement 2. I don't think they have to use a meaningful name. But I actually think this is a good to have this ability to choose a meaningful name. > 3. If the cluster.id config is optional, it goes against goal 3. On the > other hand, if it is mandatory, it goes against goal 4. > Please see my reply to requirement 3. > 4. It is a bit odd to configure a cluster property via a broker config > from a semantics/architecture perspective. Having an optional > cluster.id > broker config could make sense as a way to validate that the broker is > connecting to the right cluster[1], but it's weird to _define_ the > cluster > id in this way. > I am not sure if it is weird. We can seek the view from other SRE and developer to understand whether and why it is weird. I can ask our SRE to comment as well. It is hard to evaluate whether "weirdness" outweighs the benefits from the ability to identify cluster with a human readable cluster.id without knowing its impact on the use-case and user experience. > *How can we change cluster.id <http://cluster.id>:* > > - Update kafka broker config to use the new cluster.id > > - Either delete that znode from zookeeper, or update kafka broker config > to > > use a new zookeeper which doesn't have that znode > > - Do a rolling bounce > > > Again, I think changing ids is something to be avoided, but for the cases > where one really wants that, it seems to me that it's easier with the > current KIP as you don't need to update the config in every broker. > Hmm.. you and Sumit provided two completely difference requirement regarding immutability and easiness of change. I share similar view with Sumit on this issue. Of course we prefer to avoid changing the config. But the one-time config change is probably not a big deal as compared to the long-term benefit that comes with human readable in the monitoring/auditing use-case. > Does that help at all? > Yeah this is helpful. I appreciate your explanation. > > Thanks, > Ismael > > [1] It's listed as one of the possible approaches in point 3 of the > potential future work section (the other is to store the cluster id after > the first connection). > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hey Sumit, > > > > I have no doubt that there are benefits with using tags. But the usage of > > tags is actually orthogonal to the usage of cluster.id. I am not sure > the > > benefits of using tags that you provided can help us decide whether > > randomly generated cluster.id is better than readable cluster.id from > > config. > > > > In addition, it is hard to say evaluate your suggested approach until we > > know the goal and implementation detail of this approach. There are some > > interested questions regarding your approach. Let me list some of them: > > > > - Using readable cluster.id doesn't rule out using tags. Would it be > > better > > to use readable cluster.id + readable tags than random cluster.id + > > readable tags? > > - Do you even need cluster-id to distinguish between clusters if you > have > > tags? > > - Are you going to include both the random cluster-id and tags in the > > sensor name? > > > > I am happy to discuss this approach in more detail if you can provide the > > goal and motivation in either this KIP or a new KIP. > > > > Thanks, > > Dong > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 5:32 PM, sumit arrawatia < > sumit.arrawa...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Dong, > > > > > > Please find my comments inline. > > > > > > Hopefully they address your concerns. > > > > > > Have a great weekend ! > > > Sumit > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Sumit, > > > > > > > > Please see my comments inline. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 10:33 AM, sumit arrawatia < > > > > sumit.arrawa...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Dong, > > > > > > > > > > Please see my comments inline. > > > > > > > > > > Sumit > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Sumit, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sumit for your explanation. It seems that the concern is > > that > > > we > > > > > can > > > > > > not easily change cluster.id if we read this from config. Maybe > > the > > > > KIP > > > > > > should also specify the requirement for users to change the > > > cluster.id > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > But it seems to me that it is equally straightforward to change > > > > > cluster.id > > > > > > in both approaches. Do you think the following approach would > work: > > > > > > > > > > > > *How does cluster.id <http://cluster.id> from config work:* > > > > > > > > > > > > When Kafka starts, it reads cluster.id from config. And then it > > > reads > > > > > > cluster.id from zookeeper. > > > > > > - if the cluster.id is not specified in zookeeper, create the > > znode. > > > > > > - if the cluster.id is specified in zookeeper > > > > > > - if the cluster.id in znode is the same as the that in > config, > > > > > proceed > > > > > > - Otherwise, broker startup fails and it reports error. Note > > that > > > we > > > > > > don't make this change after the startup. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is how the current approach of generating ids would work so > I > > > > agree > > > > > with you that is how setting the cluster id from config would work > > too. > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *How can we change cluster.id <http://cluster.id>:* > > > > > > > > > > > > - Update kafka broker config to use the new cluster.id > > > > > > - Either delete that znode from zookeeper, or update kafka broker > > > > config > > > > > to > > > > > > use a new zookeeper which doesn't have that znode > > > > > > - Do a rolling bounce > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current approach described in the KIP, if you want to > > change > > > > the > > > > > > cluster.id, you need to either delete the znode, or change the > > znode > > > > > > content, before doing a rolling bounce. I don't think the > approach > > > > above > > > > > is > > > > > > more difficult than this. Any idea? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that this approach will work but only if we don't store > > > > cluster.id > > > > > on in meta.properties on the disk. But I think you will like the > > > proposed > > > > > approach better if I provide some more context. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure why you mention "... only if we don't store cluster.id > > in > > > > meta.properties", since neither the KIP nor my suggestion asks to > store > > > > cluster.id in the meta.properties. Sorry if the confusion comes from > > one > > > > of > > > > my earlier where I said we can read cluster.id from meta.properties. > > In > > > my > > > > proposal it should read from the same broker config file where we > > config > > > > zookeeper url. > > > > > > > > Anyway, since my proposed approach doesn't require the broker to > store > > > > cluster.id in meta.properties, can I say we agree that user can > easily > > > > change cluster.id with this approach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand that your concern is that cluster ids should be human > > > > readable > > > > > and it is therefore better to let the user set it and modify it. I > > > agree > > > > > that we should have human readable names as it makes it easier for > > > users > > > > to > > > > > identify the cluster in their monitoring dashboard. But we also > want > > to > > > > > allow users to change this name easily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we all agree on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the same time, we want the cluster identity to be unique and > > fairly > > > > > constant for uses cases like auditing. If we allow the users to set > > it, > > > > we > > > > > place the burden on the users to maintain uniqueness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I disagree that it is a burden for user to configure the unique > > > cluster.id > > > > for each cluster. There is something that users need to configure > > > > correctly, such as zookeeper url. I don't think it is overwhelm for > > user > > > to > > > > configure cluster.id correct. What we can do is to let Kafka report > > > error > > > > if it is not configured correctly, which is covered in the approach I > > > > suggested. > > > > > > > > > > > Lets agree to disagree here :). It might be easy to coordinate > uniqueness > > > if you have a centralized data infrastructure and single team which > takes > > > care of all changes. This is typically the case for either very small > > > organizations or very mature large organizations. But even these > > > organizations can have a lot of clusters because of different > > requirements > > > (like varying SLAs , separating PII from non-PII data, separate data > > paths > > > for client facing vs non client facing applications, etc). > > > > > > Coordinating uniqueness across the organization when you have multiple > > > clusters is a significant burden, especially when there is no way to > > > enforce it across multiple clusters (unlike zookeeper url which will > > cause > > > Kafka to fail / behave badly if it is not configured properly). > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the approach we propose is to generate a immutable UUID for the > > > > cluster > > > > > and and allow the users to assign a human readable name to the > > cluster > > > > > using resource tags. Tags also allow you to add structured metadata > > in > > > > > addition to the human readable name. For eg. if you want to > identify > > > your > > > > > cluster based on region, datacenter, env, etc. ,you can add these > as > > > > tags. > > > > > Otherwise you will need to encode this in your cluster.id > property. > > > > > > > > > > The current KIP lays the foundation for this approach. We plan to > > > > implement > > > > > the first part (UUID) in a manner that makes it easy to add the > > second > > > > part > > > > > (human readable names using tags) in a future KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting that it is better to use randomly generated > > > cluster.id > > > > + > > > > human-readable tag than using human-readable cluster.id? If so, can > > you > > > > explain the reason? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. The reason is the same as mentioned in above paragraph. Some of > the > > > reasons from the top of my head. > > > > > > 1. It is much more flexible, you can easily add tags when your > deployment > > > metadata or naming scheme changes. > > > > > > For eg. if you want to identify your cluster based on region, > datacenter, > > > env, etc. ,you can add these as tags (Name=log-aggregation-kafka, > > dc=az-1, > > > env=production). > > > > > > If you need to do the same for cluster.id you will have to come up > with > > a > > > naming scheme like <dc>-<env>-<production> > > > > > > Now consider that you want to add another dimension like region but > only > > > for production for client facing clusters. It is easy to add just that > > tag > > > to metadata to just these clusters. > > > > > > Now if you have to do it using cluster id , you will have to update > your > > > naming scheme and update all your clusters with new ids so that > > uniqueness > > > across clusters is maintained. > > > > > > Also, consider the code (for monitoring, alerting, auditing, log > > > aggregation) that will parse this cluster id : every time you need to > > > change the naming scheme for cluster id you will need to change the > code > > > everywhere . But if you use tags, you will only need to update the > parts > > of > > > code which need that tag. > > > > > > 2. Updating these tags would be really easy and would not need any > > downtime > > > as they are just metadata associated with a unique cluster id. This > > > metadata would be stored in the /cluster znode along with the generated > > > cluster id and can be updated easily using tools and require no reboots > > or > > > rolling upgrades. (Please note that the KIP for resource tags is not > > > finalized so the details might change but the essential point remains > the > > > same) > > > > > > 3. Use cases which depend on cluster ids being stable like security > > > auditing or data auditing will not be impacted if the tags themselves > > > change. Otherwise you will need to maintain a mapping of old > cluster.id > > to > > > new cluster.id or change the audit logs/storage to reflect the > > cluster.id > > > change. > > > > > > Even monitoring and log aggregation use cases benefits from having a > > stable > > > cluster id. If you change the cluster id, then either you will need to > > > throw away all the old historical data or update it with the new > cluster > > id > > > . > > > > > > 4. Tags will allow you to create UI/scripts to manage multiple clusters > > > easily. You can query clusters by tags and target commands. This means > > > generic tools can be created easily by the community for these use > cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully this helps to clarify your doubts and concerns. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Dong > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 12:46 AM, sumit arrawatia < > > > > > > sumit.arrawa...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dong, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you set the cluster.id in the config, the problem is how > you > > > > > > > change/update the cluster.id . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You will need to change the all the config files and make sure > > > every > > > > > one > > > > > > of > > > > > > > them is correct as well as update the ZK metadata. This will > > > require > > > > a > > > > > > > reboot/downtime of the entire cluster, whereas generating ids > > > (along > > > > > with > > > > > > > the yet-to-be-published resource tags KIP ) makes it easy for > the > > > > > admins > > > > > > to > > > > > > > update the human readable name without reboots/ clusterwide > > changes > > > > to > > > > > > > config. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, when we implement the change to write cluster.id in > > > > > > meta.properties, > > > > > > > the process of updating the cluster.id becomes even more > > > > complicated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We will have to ensure that the entire process is > > transactional. > > > > It > > > > > > will > > > > > > > be painful from an operational standpoint as it would require > as > > > much > > > > > > > operational downtime and care as a version upgrade because it > > will > > > > > modify > > > > > > > the on-disk data. The recovery/rollback scenario would be very > > > > > difficult > > > > > > > and would probably need manual changes to meta.properties. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Given that we would want to generate an error if the > > cluster.id > > > > in > > > > > > > meta.properties doesn't match cluster.id in ZK, we will have > to > > > > setup > > > > > > > complicated logic in ZK to ensure we forgo the check when > > changing > > > > the > > > > > > > cluster.id. I am not even sure how to do it properly for a > > rolling > > > > > > upgrade > > > > > > > without downtime. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these points are based on my experience running > Elasticsearch > > > in > > > > > > > production. ElasticSearch specifies cluster.name statically in > > the > > > > > > > properties as well as includes it in the data directory name > and > > > > > changing > > > > > > > it is a nightmare. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You would think that naming changes should be rare but in my > > > > experience > > > > > > > they are not. Sometimes typos creep in, sometimes you have to > > > change > > > > > the > > > > > > > name to consolidate clusters or divide them and sometimes the > > infra > > > > > team > > > > > > > decides to change the deployment metadata. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why I think AWS approach of (assigning immutable ids to > > > > > > resources + > > > > > > > human readable names in tags) works very well operationally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope this helps ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sumit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Ismael, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your reply. Please see my comment inline. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Ismael Juma < > ism...@juma.me.uk > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dong, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your feedback. Comments inline. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Dong Lin < > > lindon...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I share the view with Harsha and would like to understand > > how > > > > the > > > > > > > > current > > > > > > > > > > approach of randomly generating cluster.id compares with > > the > > > > > > > approach > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > manually specifying it in meta.properties. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Harsha's suggestion in the thread was to store the > generated > > id > > > > in > > > > > > > > > meta.properties, not to manually specify it via > > > meta.properties. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think one big advantage of defining it manually in > > > zookeeper > > > > is > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > can easily tell which cluster it is by simply looking at > > the > > > > > sensor > > > > > > > > name, > > > > > > > > > > which makes it more useful to the auditing or monitoring > > > > use-case > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > KIP intends to address. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you really want to customise the name, it is possible > with > > > the > > > > > > > current > > > > > > > > > proposal: save the appropriate znode in ZooKeeper before a > > > broker > > > > > > > > > auto-generates it. We don't encourage that because once you > > > have > > > > a > > > > > > > > > meaningful name, there's a good chance that you may want to > > > > change > > > > > it > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > the future. And things break down at that point. That's why > > we > > > > > prefer > > > > > > > > > having a generated, unique and immutable id complemented > by a > > > > > > > changeable > > > > > > > > > human readable name. As described in the KIP, we think the > > > latter > > > > > can > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > achieved more generally via resource tags (which will be a > > > > separate > > > > > > > KIP). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you elaborate what will break down if we need to change > > the > > > > > name? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if we can not change name because something will > breakdown > > > in > > > > > that > > > > > > > > case, it seems that it is still better to read id from config > > > than > > > > > > using > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > randomly generated ID. In my suggested solution user can > simply > > > > > choose > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > to change the name and make sure there is unique id per > > cluster. > > > In > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > proposal you need to store the old cluster.id and manually > > > restore > > > > > it > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > zookeeper in some scenarios. What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, if you can only tell whether two > > > > > > > > > > sensors are measuring the same cluster or not. Also note > > that > > > > > even > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > goal is not easily guaranteed, because you need an > external > > > > > > mechanism > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > manually re-generate znode with the old cluster.id if > > znode > > > is > > > > > > > deleted > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > if the same cluster (w.r.t purpose) is changed to use a > > > > different > > > > > > > > > > zookeeper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we assume that znodes can be deleted at random, the > > cluster > > > id > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > probably the least of one's worries. And yes, when moving > to > > a > > > > > > > > > different ZooKeeper while wanting to retain the cluster id, > > you > > > > > would > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > to set the znode manually. This doesn't seem too onerous > > > compared > > > > > to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > other work you will have to do for this scenario. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe this work is not much compared to other work. But we > > can > > > > > agree > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > no work is better than little work, right? I am interested to > > see > > > > if > > > > > we > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > avoid the work and still meet the motivation and goals of > this > > > KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I read your reply to Harsha but still I don't fully > > > understand > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > concern > > > > > > > > > > with that approach. I think the broker can simply > register > > > > > > group.id > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > znode if it is not specified yet, in the same way that > this > > > KIP > > > > > > > > proposes > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > do it, right? Can you please elaborate more about your > > > concern > > > > > with > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > approach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's a bit difficult to answer this comment because it > seems > > > like > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > intent of your suggestion is different than Harsha's. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not necessarily opposed to storing the cluster id in > > > > > > > meta.properties > > > > > > > > > (note that we have one meta.properties per log.dir), but I > > > think > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > a number of things that need to be discussed and I don't > > think > > > we > > > > > > need > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > block KIP-78 while that takes place. Delivering features > > > > > > incrementally > > > > > > > > is a > > > > > > > > > good thing in my opinion (KIP-31/32, KIP-33 and KIP-79 is a > > > good > > > > > > recent > > > > > > > > > example). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I understand it right, the motivation of this KIP is to > > allow > > > > > > cluster > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > be uniquely identified. This is a useful feature and I am not > > > > asking > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > anything beyond this scope. It is just that reading > cluster.id > > > > from > > > > > > > config > > > > > > > > seems to be a better solution in order to meet the motivation > > and > > > > all > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > goals described in the KIP. More specifically, using > > cluster.id > > > > not > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > allows user to distinguish between different clusters, it > also > > > lets > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > identify cluster. In comparison, randomly generated > cluster.id > > > > > allows > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > to distinguish cluster with a little bit more effort, and > > doesn't > > > > > allow > > > > > > > > user to identify a cluster by simply reading e.g. sensor > name. > > > Did > > > > I > > > > > > miss > > > > > > > > something here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. For what is worth, the following version of the KIP > > > includes > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > incomplete description (it assumes a single > meta.properties, > > > but > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > could be many) of what the broker would have to do if we > > wanted > > > > to > > > > > > save > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > meta.properties and potentially restore the znode from it. > > The > > > > > state > > > > > > > > space > > > > > > > > > becomes a lot more complex, increasing potential for bugs > (we > > > > had a > > > > > > few > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > generated broker ids). In contrast, the current proposal is > > > very > > > > > > simple > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > doesn't prevent us from introducing the additional > > > functionality > > > > > > later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. > > > > > > > > action?pageId=65868433 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO reading cluster.id from config should be as easy as > > reading > > > > > broker > > > > > > > id > > > > > > > > from config. Storing cluster.id from config in znode > requires > > > the > > > > > same > > > > > > > > amount of effort as storing randomly generated cluster.id in > > > > znode. > > > > > > > Maybe > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > missed something here. Can you point me to the section of the > > KIP > > > > > that > > > > > > > > explains why it is more difficult if we want to read > > cluster.id > > > > from > > > > > > > > config? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Sumit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Sumit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Sumit > > > > > >
