Jenkins build is unstable: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #1557

See

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-858: Handle JBOD broker disk failure in KRaft

Hi Jun, Thank you for your comments and questions. 30. Thank you for pointing this out. The isNew flag is not available in KRaft mode. The broker can consider the metadata records: If, and only if, the logdir assigned is Uuid.ZERO then the replica can be considered new. Being able to determine

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-858: Handle JBOD broker disk failure in KRaft

Hi Tom, Thank you for having another look. 20. That is a good point. Thinking about your suggestion: How would this look like in a non-JBOD KRraft cluster upgrade to JBOD mode? Upgrading to version that includes the JBOD support patch would automatically update meta.properties to include the

[DISCUSS] KIP-903: Replicas with stale broker epoch should not be allowed to join the ISR

Hi everyone, I'd like to discuss the fix for the broker reboot data loss KAFKA-14139 . It changes the Fetch and AlterPartition requests to include the broker epochs. Then the controller can use these epochs to help reject the stale AlterPartition

Re: [VOTE] 3.4.0 RC2

+1 (non binding) - Ran the unit and integration test suites with Java 17 and Scala 2.13 - Ran a series of basic examples and client configurations - Spot checked the docs and Javadocs Thanks Fede On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 5:29 PM Jakub Scholz wrote: > > +1 (non-binding). I run my tests with the

Re: [VOTE] 3.4.0 RC2

+1 (binding) - verified checksums/signatures - built from source - ran quickstart with zookeeper and kraft with 2.13 binaries Thanks for running this release Mickael On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 5:31 PM Jakub Scholz wrote: > > +1 (non-binding). I run my tests with the staged Scala 2.13 binaries and

Re: [VOTE] KIP-890: Transactions Server Side Defense

Thanks everyone! I'm going to close the vote. The KIP is accepted with five binding votes from Jason, Guozhang, Matthias, David (and me), and two non-binding votes from Colt and Artem. Thanks again, Justine On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 11:41 PM David Jacot wrote: > Thanks for the KIP, Justine. +1

Build failed in Jenkins: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #1556

See Changes: -- [...truncated 442290 lines...] [2023-02-03T16:37:23.090Z] Gradle Test Run :core:integrationTest > Gradle Test Executor 170 > KafkaZkClientTest >

Re: [VOTE] 3.4.0 RC2

+1 (non-binding). I run my tests with the staged Scala 2.13 binaries and staged Maven artifacts. All seems to work fine. Thanks & Regards Jakub On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 8:01 PM David Arthur wrote: > Hey folks, we found a couple of blockers with RC1 and have fixed them in > the latest release

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-894: Use incrementalAlterConfigs API for syncing topic configurations

Hi Tina, Thanks for the KIP! I recently ran into this exact issue and it's great to see a fix being proposed. I have a few small comments but overall this looks good: 1) The current logic for syncing topic configs in MM2 is basically fire-and-forget; all we do is log a warning message [1] if an

Re: [VOTE] 3.4.0 RC2

I did the following: - Validated all checksums and signatures - Built from source and ran all the unit tests - Ran quickstart steps for ZK, KRaft, and Kafka Streams (with KRaft) - Spot checked the docs and Javadocs Thanks for running the release! +1(binding) -Bill On Fri, Feb 3,

Re: [VOTE] 3.4.0 RC2

I performed the following validations: * Verified all checksums and signatures. * Built from source and ran unit tests. * Ran the first quickstart steps for both ZK and KRaft. * Spotchecked the Javadocs. I am +1 (binding). Thanks for running the release! Best, David On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 8:00

Jenkins build is still unstable: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #1555

See

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-877: Mechanism for plugins and connectors to register metrics

Hi Mickael, Thanks for the updates. > the PluginMetrics implementation will append a > suffix to sensor names to unique identify > the plugin (based on the class name and tags). Can we call this out explicitly in the KIP, since it is important to avoid clashes in sensor naming? Also, should we