Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-688: Support dynamic update of delete.topic.enable config

Hi Gwen, Agree with you ACLs would be a better option. But not all installations will be able to have secure setup and authorizer. In a hosted service where they may not be ACLs or security setup this flag helps prevent accidental topic deletion. This config acted as a good gatekeeper to

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-405: Kafka Tiered Storage

tOffset but assumes it's local? >> >> >> >> 608. Handle expired remote segment: How does it pick up new logStartOffset >> from deleteRecords? >> >> >> >> 609. RLMM message format: >> 609.1 It includes both MaxTimestamp and EventTimestamp. Where does

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-405: Kafka Tiered Storage

t 9:42 PM, Ying Zheng > > wrote: > > > > > We did some basic feature tests at Uber. The test cases and results are > > > shared in this google doc: > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ > > > 1XhNJqjzwXvMCcAOhEH0sSXU6RTvyoSf93DHF-YMfGLk/

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-405: Kafka Tiered Storage

. > Please could you add it to the Google calendar invite? > > Thank you. > > > Cheers, > Kowshik > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 10:58 AM Harsha Ch wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Scheduled a meeting for Tuesday 9am - 10am. I can record and upload for >> commu

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-405: Kafka Tiered Storage

Hi Jun, Thanks. This will help a lot. Tuesday will work for us. -Harsha On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:24 PM Jun Rao wrote: > Hi, Satish, Ying, Harsha, > > Do you think it would be useful to have a regular virtual meeting to > discuss this KIP? The goal of the meeting will be sharing >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-651 - Support PEM format for SSL certificates and private key

+1 binding. Thanks, Harsha On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 2:07 AM Manikumar wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Thanks for the KIP. > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:56 AM David Jacot wrote: > > > Supporting PEM is really nice. Thanks, Rajini. > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 9:18 PM Gwen

Re: [VOTE] KIP-578: Add configuration to limit number of partitions

Thanks for the updates Gokul.  +1 (binding). Thanks, Harsha On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 8:18 AM, Gokul Ramanan Subramanian < gokul24...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > Hi. > > > > I request the community to kindly resume the voting process for KIP-578. > If you have further comments, we can

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-405: Kafka Tiered Storage

Hi Colin, Thats not what we said in the previous email. RLMM is pluggable storage and by running numbers even 1PB data you do not need more than 10GB local storage. If in future this becomes a blocker for any users we can revisit but this does not warrant another implementation at

Re: [VOTE] KIP-545 support automated consumer offset sync across clusters in MM 2.0

+1 (binding). Good addition to MM 2. -Harsha On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 8:36 AM, Manikumar < manikumar.re...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > +1 (binding). > > > > Thanks for the KIP. > > > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:49 AM Maulin Vasavada < maulin. vasavada@ gmail. > com (

Re: [VOTE] KIP-612: Ability to Limit Connection Creation Rate on Brokers

+1 (binding) On Mon, May 18 2020 at 4:54 PM, Anna Povzner < a...@confluent.io > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-612: Ability to limit connection > creation rate on brokers. > > > > For reference, here is the KIP wiki: >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-501 Avoid out-of-sync or offline partitions when follower fetch requests not processed in time

Hi Jason & Jun,                  Do you have any feedback on the KIP or is it ok take it to voting?. Its good to have this config in Kafka to address disk failure scenarios as described in the KIP. Thanks, Harsha On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 5:10 PM, Brian Sang < bais...@yelp.com.invalid > wrote:

Re: [VOTE] KIP-373: Allow users to create delegation tokens for other users

+1 (binding). Thanks for the KIP Viktor Thanks, Harsha On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:02 AM, Viktor Somogyi-Vass < viktorsomo...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I'd like to bump this again in order to get some more binding votes and/or > feedback in the hope we can push this in

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-491: Preferred Leader Deprioritized List (Temporary Blacklist)

Hi Stanislav,                Thanks for the comments. The proposal we are making is not about optimizing Big-O but instead provide a simpler way of stopping a broker becoming leader.  If we want to go with making this an option and providing a tool which abstracts moving the broker to end

Re: [VOTE] KIP-352: Distinguish URPs caused by reassignment

+1 (binding) Thanks, Harsha On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 4:23 PM, Robert Barrett < bob.barr...@confluent.io > wrote: > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > This will be great to have, thanks Jason! > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 4:29 AM Manikumar < manikumar. reddy@ gmail. com ( >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-486 Support for pluggable KeyStore and TrustStore

Hi Maulin, With java security providers can be as custom you would like it to be. If you only want to to implement a custom way of loading the keystore and truststore and not implement any protocol/encryption handling you can leave them empty and no need to implement. Have you looked into

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer

On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:46 PM, Colin McCabe < cmcc...@apache.org > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, at 21:38, Harsha Ch wrote: > > > >> >> >> Hi Colin, >> "Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. Users don't have to build their own

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer

n McCabe wrote: > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, at 18:06, Harsha Ch wrote: > > Not sure how the AdminClient applies here, It is an external API and > > is not part of KafkaProducer so any user who updates to latest version of > > Kafka with this feature get to create the topics. >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer

Hi Colin, There is no behavior in Kafka producer that allowed users to delete the topics or delete the records. So citing them as an example doesn't makes sense in this context. But there is a functionality which allowed creation of topics if they don't exist in the cluster and this

Re: [VOTE] 2.0.0 RC1

+1 . * Ran unit tests * Verified signatures * Ran 3 node cluster with basic operations Thanks, Harsha On Mon, Jul 2nd, 2018 at 11:13 AM, "Vahid S Hashemian" wrote: > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > Built from source and ran quickstart successfully on Ubuntu (with Java 8). > > > Minor: It

Re: [VOTE] Add REST Server to Apache Kafka

Neha, As I stated in my earlier email . This is an interest check vote thread and , not a KIP vote thread, to gather input from users mailing list if there is any interest for REST server to be part of Kafka. Also, this has been noted in the discuss thread that we should make a interest

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-80: Kafka REST Server

Jay, REST API is something every user is in need of. If the argument is to clone and write your API, this will do a disservice to the users as they now have to choose one vs. others instead of keeping one API that is supported in Kafka community. "Pre-emptively re-creating another REST

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-80: Kafka REST Server

Ofir, " personally think it would be quite wasteful to re-implement the REST gateway just because that an actively-maintained piece of Apache-licensed software is not governed directly by the Apache Kafka community... While kafka-rest repo is owned by Confluent, the contributors including the

Re: [kafka-clients] [VOTE] 0.10.0.1 RC0

Thanks Ismael. On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 7:43 PM Ismael Juma wrote: > Hi Dana, > > Thanks for testing releases so promptly. Very much appreciated! > > It's funny, Ewen had suggested something similar with regards to the > release notes a couple of days ago. We now have a Python