Alexey, Thanks for the response.
Doesn't leader rebalancing just allow the preferred leader to become leader again once it's recovered? Node 2 would still become leader for all partitions if node 1 failed. That's not exactly what I'm looking to achieve. I need to ensure that node 2 never becomes leader for any partitions. On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Alexey Ozeritsky <aozerit...@yandex.ru> wrote: > Hi, Jason > > This scenario is supported. > Just set config option > auto.leader.rebalance.enable=false > And use tool kafka-preferred-replica-election.sh > > If you want to move leader from one host to another use tool > kafka-reassign-partitions.sh with same replica list but other order > > 22.08.2016, 20:36, "Jason Aliyetti" <j.aliye...@gmail.com>: > > I have a use case that requires a 2 node deployment with a Kafka-backed > > service with the following constraints: > > > > - All data must be persisted to node 1. If node 1 fails (regardless of > the > > status of node 2), then the system must stop. > > - If node 2 is up, then it must stay in synch with node 1. > > - If node 2 fails, then service must not be disrupted, but as soon as it > > comes back up and rejoins ISR it must stay in synch. > > > > The deployment is basically a primary node and a cold node with real time > > replication, but no failover to the cold node. > > > > To achieve this I am considering adding a broker-level configuration > option > > that would prevent a broker from becoming a leader for any topic > partition > > it hosts - this would allow me to enforce that the cold node never take > > leadership for any topics. In conjunction with manipulating a topic's > > "min.insync.replicas" setting at runtime, I should be able to achieve the > > behavior desired (2 if both brokers up, 1 if the standby goes down). > > > > I know this sounds like an edgy use case, but does this sound like a > > reasonable approach? Are there any valid use cases around such a broker > or > > topic level configuration (i.e. does this sound like a feature that would > > make sense to open a KIP against)? >
