[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-16414?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17831186#comment-17831186
]
Chia-Ping Tsai commented on KAFKA-16414:
----------------------------------------
[~ckamal] Thanks for nice sharing. As you have digged in both retention.ms and
retention.bytes, what do you think about aligning the behavior of retention.ms
and retention.bytes? Is it worth doing such changes?
> Inconsistent active segment expiration behavior between retention.ms and
> retention.bytes
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-16414
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-16414
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 3.6.1
> Reporter: Kuan Po Tseng
> Assignee: Kuan Po Tseng
> Priority: Major
>
> This is a follow up issue on KAFKA-16385.
> Currently, there's a difference between how retention.ms and retention.bytes
> handle active segment expiration:
> - retention.ms always expire active segment when max segment timestamp
> matches the condition.
> - retention.bytes only expire active segment when retention.bytes is
> configured to zero.
> The behavior should be either rotate active segments for both retention
> configurations or none at all.
> For more details, see
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-16385?focusedCommentId=17829682&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17829682
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
