Ismael, I am open to using any error code and am not attached to one TBH. Colin had suggested creating a new resource code called RESOURCE_LIMIT_EXCEEDED. I am happy to reuse the error code corresponding to PolicyViolation. Is it safe to rename errors and corresponding exception names? If so, I'd prefer reusing the existing code as well.
For performance testing results that I added to this KIP, I used Kafka 2.3.1, which was very close to trunk at the time I tested. We have seen similar issues with Kafka 2.4.1. Please note that for the tests done in the KIP, especially the Produce performance tests, we probably could have gotten higher performance, but the focus was on comparing performance across a different number of partitions, for a given configuration, rather than trying to find out the best performance possible for the "right" number of partitions. Thanks. On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 4:07 AM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Thanks for the KIP. A couple of questions: > > 1. Have we considered reusing the existing PolicyViolation error code and > renaming it? This would make it simpler to handle on the client. > > 2. What version was used for the perf section? I think master should do > better than what's described there. > > Ismael > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020, 8:28 AM Gokul Ramanan Subramanian < > gokul24...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > I have opened KIP-578, intended to provide a mechanism to limit the > number > > of partitions in a Kafka cluster. Kindly provide feedback on the KIP > which > > you can find at > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-578%3A+Add+configuration+to+limit+number+of+partitions > > > > I want to specially thank Stanislav Kozlovski who helped in formulating > > some aspects of the KIP. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Gokul. > > >
