Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-349: Add systemCursorNames ignore list for TTL check

2024-05-05 Thread Enrico Olivelli
Overall I support this idea, but the name 'systemCursorsNames' is not good and we should not make it configurable. First, we have to make a call to the TTL thing, otherwise we will end up in using that for other stuff, and not only TTL. Second, we shouldn't make this configurable. Those cursors d

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-349: Add systemCursorNames ignore list for TTL check

2024-05-05 Thread PengHui Li
LGTM, Regards, Penghui On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 2:02 PM Lari Hotari wrote: > LGTM, very useful. Thanks for driving this. > > -Lari > > On 2024/05/04 16:01:41 Hang Chen wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I proposed a new proposal to improve the TTL impact on system > > cursors. Please help take a look, t

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-349: Add systemCursorNames ignore list for TTL check

2024-05-05 Thread Lari Hotari
LGTM, very useful. Thanks for driving this. -Lari On 2024/05/04 16:01:41 Hang Chen wrote: > Hi guys, > I proposed a new proposal to improve the TTL impact on system > cursors. Please help take a look, thanks. > > PIP: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22651 > > Thanks, > Hang >

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Pulsar 3.3.0 release

2024-05-05 Thread Cong Zhao
Hello Enrico, Can you list which PRs are important? I see that only has 6 PRs closed on 4.17.1. On 2024/04/29 07:02:34 Enrico Olivelli wrote: > +1 > > Thanks for driving the release. > > FYI On the BookKeeper side there are some fixes about metrics, maybe we > could ask for a new 4.17.1 releas

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-349: Add systemCursorNames ignore list for TTL check

2024-05-05 Thread Yubiao Feng
Hi Hang Agree with you. Thanks Yubiao Feng On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 12:01 AM Hang Chen wrote: > Hi guys, > I proposed a new proposal to improve the TTL impact on system > cursors. Please help take a look, thanks. > > PIP: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22651 > > Thanks, > Hang >

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Pulsar 3.3.0 release

2024-05-05 Thread Cong Zhao
hello Enrico, About when BookKeeper 4.17.1 will be released, I want to cut off the 3.3 branch this week, do we need to wait for BookKeeper 4.17.1 release? On 2024/04/29 07:02:34 Enrico Olivelli wrote: > +1 > > Thanks for driving the release. > > FYI On the BookKeeper side there are some fixes

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-348: Trigger offload on topic load stage

2024-05-05 Thread Hang Chen
Hi Enrico, I agree with Jiuming, we do not need a flag to control this behavior. We will call `maybeOffloadInBackground` method in the managedledger init stage. This method only checks the offload policies to decide if we need to trigger offload. If the offload conditions are met, use the sched

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-348: Trigger offload on topic load stage

2024-05-05 Thread 太上玄元道君
hi Enrico, I still think it doesn't matter 1. Offload a topic or not, configured by `managedLedgerOffloadAutoTriggerSizeThresholdBytes`/`managedLedgerOffloadThresholdInSeconds`, even though we may trigger a bunch of stuff, it's expected behavior 2. After triggered to offload a topic, the offload