Hi,
Can we please discuss this KIP. The background for this is that it allows
us to pin controller to a broker. This is useful in a couple of scenarios:
a) If we want to do a rolling bounce we can reduce the number of controller
moves down to 1.
b) Again pick a designated broker and reduce the
Agree with Jay on staying away from pinning roles to brokers. This is
actually harder to operate and monitor.
Regarding the problems you mentioned-
1. Reducing the controller moves during rolling bounce is useful but really
something that should be handled by the tooling. The root cause is that
This seems like a step backwards--we really don't want people to manually
manage the location of the controller and try to manually balance
partitions off that broker.
I think it might make sense to consider directly fixing the things you
actual want to fix:
1. Two many controller moves--we could
Hi Jay/Neha,
I just subscribed to the mailing list so I read your response but did not
receive your email so adding the context into this email thread.
"
Agree with Jay on staying away from pinning roles to brokers. This is
actually harder to operate and monitor.
Regarding the problems you
>
> I will update the KIP on how we can optimize the placement of controller
> (pinning it to a preferred broker id (potentially config enabled) ) if that
> sounds reasonable.
The point I (and I think Jay too) was making is that pinning a controller
to a broker through config is what we should
Hi Abhishek -
Perhaps it would help if you explained the motivation behind your proposal.
I know there was a bunch of discussion on KAFKA-1778, can you summarize?
Currently, I'd agree with Neha and Jay that there isn't really a strong
reason to pin the controller to a given broker or restricted
