Re: [VOTE] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams
Thanks John! Makes sense. On 5/4/20 10:00 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > Thanks for the explanation John. > > > Guozhang > > On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 7:10 PM John Roesler wrote: > >> Hi Guozhang, >> >> Ah, good question. Yes, the assignor will always now try to achieve a >> perfect balance. This was also the proposed default in the KIP before. The >> config would have allowed users to relax the search for perfection. >> >> This is actually one of our motivations now to remove it. We feel it’s >> simpler to reason about the behavior of the system if you know it’s always >> going to produce a balanced assignment. >> >> Thanks, >> John >> >> On Sun, May 3, 2020, at 19:03, Guozhang Wang wrote: >>> Hello John / Sophie: >>> >>> With this config removed, would the assignor always tries to to achieve >> the >>> "perfect balance" (of course, it may be a sub-optimal local plateau) or >>> there's an internal hard-coded factor to still retain some satisfying >>> threshold? >>> >>> Guozhang >>> >>> On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 9:23 AM John Roesler wrote: >>> Hi Matthias, We originally proposed that config to allow us to skip migrating tasks >> if the current balance is “good enough”. But during implementation, we >> became concerned that supporting this option increased code complexity, and >> it’s also an extra concept for users to have to learn. To keep the new balancing system simpler both internally and >> externally, we’d like to drop it from the API for now, with the idea of adding it >> later if needed. Does that seem reasonable? Thanks, John On Fri, May 1, 2020, at 14:18, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > Can you elaborate why to remove it? > > On 5/1/20 11:29 AM, Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote: >> Hey all, >> >> We'd like to make a slight modification to the proposal in this >> KIP and >> remove >> the *balance.factor* config. We will update the KIP accordingly. Please let >> us know >> if you have any concerns. >> >> Cheers, >> Sophie >> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:48 PM John Roesler >> wrote: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> After a long hiatus, I've just realized that I'm now able to >> upgrade my >>> non-binding support to a binding +1 for KIP-441. >>> >>> This brings the vote tally to: >>> 3 binding +1s: Guozhang, Bill, and myself >>> 3 non-binding +1s: Bruno, Vinoth, and Sophie >>> >>> Since the vote has been open for at least 72 hours, the KIP is accepted. >>> >>> Thanks all, >>> -John >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 21:02 PM John Roesler wrote: Hey all, Now that the 2.4 release storm is over, I'd like to bump this >> vote >>> thread. Currently, we have two binding +1s (Guozhang and Bill), and four non-binding ones (Bruno, Vinoth, Sophie, and myself), and no >> vetoes. Thanks, -John On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:54 PM Bill Bejeck wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman < >>> sop...@confluent.io> wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar < >>> vchan...@confluent.io> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding). >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:46 AM Bruno Cadonna < >> br...@confluent.io > >>> wrote: >>> +1 (non-binding) On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Guozhang Wang < >>> wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 (binding). > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Roesler < >> j...@confluent.io> >>> wrote: > >> Hello, all, >> >> After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on >> KIP-441, >> to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. >> Please cast your votes! >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams >> >> Thanks, >> -John >> > > > -- > -- Guozhang >>> >> >>> >> > > > Attachments: > * signature.asc >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- Guozhang >>> >> > > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [VOTE] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams
Thanks for the explanation John. Guozhang On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 7:10 PM John Roesler wrote: > Hi Guozhang, > > Ah, good question. Yes, the assignor will always now try to achieve a > perfect balance. This was also the proposed default in the KIP before. The > config would have allowed users to relax the search for perfection. > > This is actually one of our motivations now to remove it. We feel it’s > simpler to reason about the behavior of the system if you know it’s always > going to produce a balanced assignment. > > Thanks, > John > > On Sun, May 3, 2020, at 19:03, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > Hello John / Sophie: > > > > With this config removed, would the assignor always tries to to achieve > the > > "perfect balance" (of course, it may be a sub-optimal local plateau) or > > there's an internal hard-coded factor to still retain some satisfying > > threshold? > > > > Guozhang > > > > On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 9:23 AM John Roesler wrote: > > > > > Hi Matthias, > > > > > > We originally proposed that config to allow us to skip migrating tasks > if > > > the current balance is “good enough”. But during implementation, we > became > > > concerned that supporting this option increased code complexity, and > it’s > > > also an extra concept for users to have to learn. > > > > > > To keep the new balancing system simpler both internally and > externally, > > > we’d like to drop it from the API for now, with the idea of adding it > later > > > if needed. > > > > > > Does that seem reasonable? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > John > > > > > > On Fri, May 1, 2020, at 14:18, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > > > Can you elaborate why to remove it? > > > > > > > > On 5/1/20 11:29 AM, Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote: > > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > > > > > We'd like to make a slight modification to the proposal in this > KIP and > > > > > remove > > > > > the *balance.factor* config. We will update the KIP accordingly. > > > Please let > > > > > us know > > > > > if you have any concerns. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Sophie > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:48 PM John Roesler > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hello all, > > > > >> > > > > >> After a long hiatus, I've just realized that I'm now able to > upgrade > > > my > > > > >> non-binding support to a binding +1 for KIP-441. > > > > >> > > > > >> This brings the vote tally to: > > > > >> 3 binding +1s: Guozhang, Bill, and myself > > > > >> 3 non-binding +1s: Bruno, Vinoth, and Sophie > > > > >> > > > > >> Since the vote has been open for at least 72 hours, the KIP is > > > accepted. > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks all, > > > > >> -John > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 21:02 PM John Roesler > > > wrote: > > > > >>> Hey all, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Now that the 2.4 release storm is over, I'd like to bump this > vote > > > > >> thread. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Currently, we have two binding +1s (Guozhang and Bill), and four > > > > >>> non-binding ones (Bruno, Vinoth, Sophie, and myself), and no > vetoes. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thanks, > > > > >>> -John > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:54 PM Bill Bejeck > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman < > > > > >> sop...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar < > > > > >> vchan...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> +1 (non-binding). > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:46 AM Bruno Cadonna < > br...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> +1 (non-binding) > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Guozhang Wang < > > > > >> wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 (binding). > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Roesler < > j...@confluent.io> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello, all, > > > > > > > > > > After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on > KIP-441, > > > > > to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. > > > > > Please cast your votes! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Attachments: > > > > * signature.asc > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > > > -- -- Guozhang
Re: [VOTE] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams
Hi Guozhang, Ah, good question. Yes, the assignor will always now try to achieve a perfect balance. This was also the proposed default in the KIP before. The config would have allowed users to relax the search for perfection. This is actually one of our motivations now to remove it. We feel it’s simpler to reason about the behavior of the system if you know it’s always going to produce a balanced assignment. Thanks, John On Sun, May 3, 2020, at 19:03, Guozhang Wang wrote: > Hello John / Sophie: > > With this config removed, would the assignor always tries to to achieve the > "perfect balance" (of course, it may be a sub-optimal local plateau) or > there's an internal hard-coded factor to still retain some satisfying > threshold? > > Guozhang > > On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 9:23 AM John Roesler wrote: > > > Hi Matthias, > > > > We originally proposed that config to allow us to skip migrating tasks if > > the current balance is “good enough”. But during implementation, we became > > concerned that supporting this option increased code complexity, and it’s > > also an extra concept for users to have to learn. > > > > To keep the new balancing system simpler both internally and externally, > > we’d like to drop it from the API for now, with the idea of adding it later > > if needed. > > > > Does that seem reasonable? > > > > Thanks, > > John > > > > On Fri, May 1, 2020, at 14:18, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > > Can you elaborate why to remove it? > > > > > > On 5/1/20 11:29 AM, Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote: > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > > > We'd like to make a slight modification to the proposal in this KIP and > > > > remove > > > > the *balance.factor* config. We will update the KIP accordingly. > > Please let > > > > us know > > > > if you have any concerns. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Sophie > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:48 PM John Roesler > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hello all, > > > >> > > > >> After a long hiatus, I've just realized that I'm now able to upgrade > > my > > > >> non-binding support to a binding +1 for KIP-441. > > > >> > > > >> This brings the vote tally to: > > > >> 3 binding +1s: Guozhang, Bill, and myself > > > >> 3 non-binding +1s: Bruno, Vinoth, and Sophie > > > >> > > > >> Since the vote has been open for at least 72 hours, the KIP is > > accepted. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks all, > > > >> -John > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 21:02 PM John Roesler > > wrote: > > > >>> Hey all, > > > >>> > > > >>> Now that the 2.4 release storm is over, I'd like to bump this vote > > > >> thread. > > > >>> > > > >>> Currently, we have two binding +1s (Guozhang and Bill), and four > > > >>> non-binding ones (Bruno, Vinoth, Sophie, and myself), and no vetoes. > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > >>> -John > > > >>> > > > >>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:54 PM Bill Bejeck > > wrote: > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman < > > > >> sop...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar < > > > >> vchan...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > >> +1 (non-binding). > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:46 AM Bruno Cadonna > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> +1 (non-binding) > > > >>> > > > >>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Guozhang Wang < > > > >> wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > +1 (binding). > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Roesler > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, all, > > > > > > > > After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on KIP-441, > > > > to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. > > > > Please cast your votes! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Guozhang > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Attachments: > > > * signature.asc > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams
Hello John / Sophie: With this config removed, would the assignor always tries to to achieve the "perfect balance" (of course, it may be a sub-optimal local plateau) or there's an internal hard-coded factor to still retain some satisfying threshold? Guozhang On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 9:23 AM John Roesler wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > We originally proposed that config to allow us to skip migrating tasks if > the current balance is “good enough”. But during implementation, we became > concerned that supporting this option increased code complexity, and it’s > also an extra concept for users to have to learn. > > To keep the new balancing system simpler both internally and externally, > we’d like to drop it from the API for now, with the idea of adding it later > if needed. > > Does that seem reasonable? > > Thanks, > John > > On Fri, May 1, 2020, at 14:18, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > Can you elaborate why to remove it? > > > > On 5/1/20 11:29 AM, Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote: > > > Hey all, > > > > > > We'd like to make a slight modification to the proposal in this KIP and > > > remove > > > the *balance.factor* config. We will update the KIP accordingly. > Please let > > > us know > > > if you have any concerns. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Sophie > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:48 PM John Roesler > wrote: > > > > > >> Hello all, > > >> > > >> After a long hiatus, I've just realized that I'm now able to upgrade > my > > >> non-binding support to a binding +1 for KIP-441. > > >> > > >> This brings the vote tally to: > > >> 3 binding +1s: Guozhang, Bill, and myself > > >> 3 non-binding +1s: Bruno, Vinoth, and Sophie > > >> > > >> Since the vote has been open for at least 72 hours, the KIP is > accepted. > > >> > > >> Thanks all, > > >> -John > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 21:02 PM John Roesler > wrote: > > >>> Hey all, > > >>> > > >>> Now that the 2.4 release storm is over, I'd like to bump this vote > > >> thread. > > >>> > > >>> Currently, we have two binding +1s (Guozhang and Bill), and four > > >>> non-binding ones (Bruno, Vinoth, Sophie, and myself), and no vetoes. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> -John > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:54 PM Bill Bejeck > wrote: > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman < > > >> sop...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar < > > >> vchan...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > >> +1 (non-binding). > > >> > > >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:46 AM Bruno Cadonna > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> +1 (non-binding) > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Guozhang Wang < > > >> wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > +1 (binding). > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Roesler > > >> wrote: > > > > > Hello, all, > > > > > > After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on KIP-441, > > > to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. > > > Please cast your votes! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -John > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Attachments: > > * signature.asc > -- -- Guozhang
Re: [VOTE] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams
Hi Matthias, We originally proposed that config to allow us to skip migrating tasks if the current balance is “good enough”. But during implementation, we became concerned that supporting this option increased code complexity, and it’s also an extra concept for users to have to learn. To keep the new balancing system simpler both internally and externally, we’d like to drop it from the API for now, with the idea of adding it later if needed. Does that seem reasonable? Thanks, John On Fri, May 1, 2020, at 14:18, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > Can you elaborate why to remove it? > > On 5/1/20 11:29 AM, Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > We'd like to make a slight modification to the proposal in this KIP and > > remove > > the *balance.factor* config. We will update the KIP accordingly. Please let > > us know > > if you have any concerns. > > > > Cheers, > > Sophie > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:48 PM John Roesler wrote: > > > >> Hello all, > >> > >> After a long hiatus, I've just realized that I'm now able to upgrade my > >> non-binding support to a binding +1 for KIP-441. > >> > >> This brings the vote tally to: > >> 3 binding +1s: Guozhang, Bill, and myself > >> 3 non-binding +1s: Bruno, Vinoth, and Sophie > >> > >> Since the vote has been open for at least 72 hours, the KIP is accepted. > >> > >> Thanks all, > >> -John > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 21:02 PM John Roesler wrote: > >>> Hey all, > >>> > >>> Now that the 2.4 release storm is over, I'd like to bump this vote > >> thread. > >>> > >>> Currently, we have two binding +1s (Guozhang and Bill), and four > >>> non-binding ones (Bruno, Vinoth, Sophie, and myself), and no vetoes. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> -John > >>> > >>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:54 PM Bill Bejeck wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman < > >> sop...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar < > >> vchan...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > >> +1 (non-binding). > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:46 AM Bruno Cadonna > >> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 (non-binding) > >>> > >>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Guozhang Wang < > >> wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 (binding). > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Roesler > >> wrote: > > > Hello, all, > > > > After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on KIP-441, > > to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. > > Please cast your votes! > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams > > > > Thanks, > > -John > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > Attachments: > * signature.asc
Re: [VOTE] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams
Can you elaborate why to remove it? On 5/1/20 11:29 AM, Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote: > Hey all, > > We'd like to make a slight modification to the proposal in this KIP and > remove > the *balance.factor* config. We will update the KIP accordingly. Please let > us know > if you have any concerns. > > Cheers, > Sophie > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:48 PM John Roesler wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> After a long hiatus, I've just realized that I'm now able to upgrade my >> non-binding support to a binding +1 for KIP-441. >> >> This brings the vote tally to: >> 3 binding +1s: Guozhang, Bill, and myself >> 3 non-binding +1s: Bruno, Vinoth, and Sophie >> >> Since the vote has been open for at least 72 hours, the KIP is accepted. >> >> Thanks all, >> -John >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 21:02 PM John Roesler wrote: >>> Hey all, >>> >>> Now that the 2.4 release storm is over, I'd like to bump this vote >> thread. >>> >>> Currently, we have two binding +1s (Guozhang and Bill), and four >>> non-binding ones (Bruno, Vinoth, Sophie, and myself), and no vetoes. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -John >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:54 PM Bill Bejeck wrote: +1 (binding) On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman < >> sop...@confluent.io> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar < >> vchan...@confluent.io> wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding). >> >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:46 AM Bruno Cadonna >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Guozhang Wang < >> wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: +1 (binding). On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Roesler >> wrote: > Hello, all, > > After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on KIP-441, > to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. > Please cast your votes! > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams > > Thanks, > -John > -- -- Guozhang >>> >> > >>> >> > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [VOTE] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams
Hey all, We'd like to make a slight modification to the proposal in this KIP and remove the *balance.factor* config. We will update the KIP accordingly. Please let us know if you have any concerns. Cheers, Sophie On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:48 PM John Roesler wrote: > Hello all, > > After a long hiatus, I've just realized that I'm now able to upgrade my > non-binding support to a binding +1 for KIP-441. > > This brings the vote tally to: > 3 binding +1s: Guozhang, Bill, and myself > 3 non-binding +1s: Bruno, Vinoth, and Sophie > > Since the vote has been open for at least 72 hours, the KIP is accepted. > > Thanks all, > -John > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 21:02 PM John Roesler wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > Now that the 2.4 release storm is over, I'd like to bump this vote > thread. > > > > Currently, we have two binding +1s (Guozhang and Bill), and four > > non-binding ones (Bruno, Vinoth, Sophie, and myself), and no vetoes. > > > > Thanks, > > -John > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:54 PM Bill Bejeck wrote: > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman < > sop...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar < > vchan...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding). > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:46 AM Bruno Cadonna > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Guozhang Wang < > wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Roesler > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on KIP-441, > > > > > > > > to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. > > > > > > > > Please cast your votes! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams
Hello all, After a long hiatus, I've just realized that I'm now able to upgrade my non-binding support to a binding +1 for KIP-441. This brings the vote tally to: 3 binding +1s: Guozhang, Bill, and myself 3 non-binding +1s: Bruno, Vinoth, and Sophie Since the vote has been open for at least 72 hours, the KIP is accepted. Thanks all, -John On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 21:02 PM John Roesler wrote: > Hey all, > > Now that the 2.4 release storm is over, I'd like to bump this vote thread. > > Currently, we have two binding +1s (Guozhang and Bill), and four > non-binding ones (Bruno, Vinoth, Sophie, and myself), and no vetoes. > > Thanks, > -John > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:54 PM Bill Bejeck wrote: > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman > > wrote: > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding). > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:46 AM Bruno Cadonna > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Guozhang Wang > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding). > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Roesler > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on KIP-441, > > > > > > > to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. > > > > > > > Please cast your votes! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams
Hey all, Now that the 2.4 release storm is over, I'd like to bump this vote thread. Currently, we have two binding +1s (Guozhang and Bill), and four non-binding ones (Bruno, Vinoth, Sophie, and myself), and no vetoes. Thanks, -John On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:54 PM Bill Bejeck wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar > > wrote: > > > > > +1 (non-binding). > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:46 AM Bruno Cadonna > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Guozhang Wang > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding). > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Roesler > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, all, > > > > > > > > > > > > After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on KIP-441, > > > > > > to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. > > > > > > Please cast your votes! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams
+1 (binding) On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding). > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:46 AM Bruno Cadonna > wrote: > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Guozhang Wang > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 (binding). > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Roesler > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello, all, > > > > > > > > > > After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on KIP-441, > > > > > to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. > > > > > Please cast your votes! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams
+1 (non-binding) On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar wrote: > +1 (non-binding). > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:46 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Guozhang Wang > wrote: > > > > > > +1 (binding). > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Roesler wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, all, > > > > > > > > After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on KIP-441, > > > > to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. > > > > Please cast your votes! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Guozhang > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams
+1 (non-binding). On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:46 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > > +1 (binding). > > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Roesler wrote: > > > > > Hello, all, > > > > > > After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on KIP-441, > > > to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. > > > Please cast your votes! > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -John > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams
+1 (non-binding) On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:32 AM Guozhang Wang wrote: > > +1 (binding). > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Roesler wrote: > > > Hello, all, > > > > After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on KIP-441, > > to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. > > Please cast your votes! > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams > > > > Thanks, > > -John > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang
Re: [VOTE] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams
+1 (binding). On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Roesler wrote: > Hello, all, > > After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on KIP-441, > to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. > Please cast your votes! > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams > > Thanks, > -John > -- -- Guozhang
[VOTE] KIP-441: Smooth Scaling Out for Kafka Streams
Hello, all, After a great discussion, I'd like to open voting on KIP-441, to avoid long restore times in Streams after rebalancing. Please cast your votes! https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-441:+Smooth+Scaling+Out+for+Kafka+Streams Thanks, -John
