Hi Gokul Ramanan Subramanian, Thanks for the KIP.
Can you please modify the KIP to remove the reference to the deprecated --zookeeper flag? This is not how kafka-configs.sh is supposed to be used in new versions of Kafka. You get a warning message if you do use this deprecated flag. As described in KIP-604, we are removing the --zookeeper flag in the Kafka 3.0 release. It also causes problems when people use the deprecated access mode-- for example, as you note in this KIP, it bypasses resource limits such as the ones described here. Instead of WILL_EXCEED_PARTITION_LIMITS, how about RESOURCE_LIMIT_REACHED? Then the error string can contain the detailed message about which resource limit was hit (per broker limit, per cluster limit, whatever.) It would also be good to spell out that CreateTopicsPolicy plugins can also throw this exception, for consistency. I realize that 2 billion partitions seems like a very big number. However, filesystems have had to transition to 64 bit inode numbers as time has gone on. There doesn't seem to be any performance reason why this should be a 31 bit number, so let's just make these configurations longs, not ints. best, Colin On Wed, May 27, 2020, at 09:48, Harsha Chintalapani wrote: > Thanks for the KIP Gokul. This will be really useful for our use cases as > well. > +1 (binding). > > -Harsha > > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:33 AM, Gokul Ramanan Subramanian < > gokul24...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > Any votes for this? > > > > Thanks. > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:36 AM Gokul Ramanan Subramanian < gokul2411s@ > > gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I'd like to initialize voting on KIP-578: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > > KIP-578%3A+Add+configuration+to+limit+number+of+partitions > > . > > > > Got some good feedback from Stanislav Kozlovski, Alexandre Dupriez and Tom > > Bentley on the discussion thread. I have addressed their comments. I want > > to thank them for their time. > > > > If there are any more concerns about the KIP, I am happy to discuss them > > further. > > > > Thanks. > > > > >
