<< In RAID 5 one can loose more than only one disk RAID here will be data
corruption.
>> In RAID 5 if one looses more than only one disk RAID there will be data
corruption.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:27 PM Vishal Santoshi
wrote:
> One obvious issue is disk failure toleration . As in if RF =3
One obvious issue is disk failure toleration . As in if RF =3 on.normal
JBOD disk failure toleration is 2. In RAID 5 one can loose more than only
one disk RAID here will be data corruption. effectively making the broker
unusable, thus reducing our drive failure toleration to 2 drives ON 2
We have a pretty busy kafka cluster with SSD and plain JBOD. We planning or
thinking of using RAID 5 ( hardware raid or 6 drive SSD bokers ) instead
of JBID for various reasons. Hss some one used RAID 5 ( we know that there
is a write overhead parity bit on blocks and recreating a dead drive )
Hey guys, I'm getting a bit overwhelmed by the different variables used to
help enable batching for me.
I have some custom batching logic that processes when either N records have
been buffered or my max timeout has been hit. It was working decently well,
but I hit this error:
*This means that
I don't think it has anything to do with your specific topology, but it
might be
that the "stickiness" is overriding the "data parallelism balance" in the
current
assignment algorithm. There are a lot of different factors to optimize for,
so we
end up making tradeoffs with a rough hierarchy of
Thanks Peter for running this experiment. That looks sorta normal. It looks
like Connect is deciding to use 10 total tasks and doesn't care which ones
do what. Ideally you'd see the MirrorSourceConnector tasks evenly divided,
since they do the bulk of the work -- but that doesn't seem to be the
so I made some tests with tasks.max = 4
with 2 instances:
- instance 1: 4 MirrorSourceConnector, 1 MirrorHeartbeatConnector tasks
- instance 2: 4 MirrorCheckpointConnector, 1 MirrorHeartbeatConnector tasks
with 3 instances:
- instance 1: 3 MirrorCheckpointConnector tasks
- instance 2: 3
Thanks for your help Sophie and Matthias.
In my cloud environment I'm using kafka version 2.2.1. I've tested this
locally with 2.4.1 and I can see the same issue with 3 local instances. As
I add more local instances I start to see better balancing.
I was wondering if the issue could be because
Thanks for your help Sophie and Matthias.
In my cloud environment I'm using kafka version 2.2.1. I've tested this
locally with 2.4.1 and I can see the same issue with 3 local instances. As
I add more local instances I start to see better balancing.
I was wondering if the issue could be because
