Hi Ron, Yes, that's what I am proposing, yes.
Ismael On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 2:30 PM Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Ismael. I think you are proposing a pair of mutually exclusive > args --process.roles and --node.id, right? I agree that is more > user-friendly than the --required-config arg, and it comes at the possible > expense of generality. So that’s the tradeoff between the two, I think. > No other config comes to mind now that we’ve identified these two. I think > the two specific and mutually exclusive parameters would be the way to go > unless someone else identifies still more options that people might want. > > Did I get that right, or were you proposing something different? > > Ron > > > On Sep 30, 2023, at 10:42 AM, Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for the KIP. I think this approach based on configs is a bit too > > open ended and not very user friendly. Why don't we simply provide flags > > for the things a user may care about? So far, it seems like we have two > > good candidates (node id and process role). Are there any others? > > > > Ismael > > > >> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 6:19 PM Hailey Ni <h...@confluent.io.invalid> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Ron, > >> > >> I think you made a great point, making the "name" arbitrary instead of > >> hard-coding it will make the functionality much more flexible. I've > updated > >> the KIP and the code accordingly. Thanks for the great idea! > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Hailey > >> > >> > >>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 2:34 PM Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks, Hailey. Is there a reason to restrict it to just > >>> process.roles and node.id? Someone might want to do > >>> "--required-config any.name=whatever.value", for example, and at first > >>> glance I don't see a reason why the implementation should be any > >>> different -- it seems it would probably be easier to not have to worry > >>> about restricting to specific cases, actually. WDYT? > >>> > >>> Ron > >>> > >>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 5:12 PM Hailey Ni <h...@confluent.io.invalid> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Updated. Please let me know if you have any additional comments. Thank > >>> you! > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 3:02 PM Hailey Ni <h...@confluent.io> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Ron. Thanks for the response. I agree with your point. I'll make > >> the > >>>>> corresponding changes in the KIP and KAFKA-15471 > >>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-15471>. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 1:40 PM Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Hailey. No, I just looked, and zookeeper-server-stop does not > >> have > >>>>>> any facility to be specific about which ZK nodes to signal. So > >>>>>> providing the ability in kafka-server-stop to be more specific than > >>>>>> just "signal all controllers" or "signal all brokers" would be a > >> bonus > >>>>>> and therefore not necessarily required. But if it is easy to > >> achieve > >>>>>> and doesn't add any additional cognitive load -- and at first glance > >>>>>> it does seem so -- we should probably just support it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ron > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 6:15 PM Hailey Ni <h...@confluent.io.invalid > >>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Ron, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank you very much for the comment. I think it makes sense to me > >>> that > >>>>>> we > >>>>>>> provide an even more specific way to kill individual > >>>>>> controllers/brokers. > >>>>>>> I have one question: does the command line for ZooKeeper cluster > >>> provide > >>>>>>> such a way to kill individual controllers/brokers? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> Hailey > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 11:01 AM Ron Dagostino <rndg...@gmail.com > >>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP, Hailey. It will be nice to provide some > >>>>>>>> fine-grained control for when people running the broker and > >>> controller > >>>>>>>> this way want to stop just one of them. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> One thing that occurs to me is that in a development environment > >>>>>>>> someone might want to run multiple controllers and multiple > >>> brokers > >>>>>>>> all on the same box, and in that case they might want to > >> actually > >>> stop > >>>>>>>> just one controller or just one broker instead of all of them. > >>> So I'm > >>>>>>>> wondering if maybe instead of supporting kafka-server-stop > >>>>>>>> [--process.roles <value>] we might want to instead support > >>>>>>>> kafka-server-stop [--required-config <name=value>]. If someone > >>> wanted > >>>>>>>> to stop any/all controllers and not touch the broker(s) they > >> could > >>>>>>>> still achieve that by invoking kafka-server-stop > >> --required-config > >>>>>>>> process.roles=controller. But if they did want to stop a > >>> particular > >>>>>>>> controller they could then also achieve that via > >> kafka-server-stop > >>>>>>>> --required-config node.id=1 (for example). What do you think? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ron > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 5:56 PM Hailey Ni > >>> <h...@confluent.io.invalid> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I would like to start the discussion about *KIP-979: Allow > >>>>>> independently > >>>>>>>>> stop KRaft controllers or brokers* < > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-979%3A+Allow+independently+stop+KRaft+controllers+or+brokers > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It proposes adding an optional field "--process.roles <value>" > >>> in > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> script to allow users to independently stop either KRaft > >> broker > >>>>>> processes > >>>>>>>>> or controller processes. While in the past, all processes were > >>>>>> killed > >>>>>>>> using > >>>>>>>>> a single script. > >>>>>>>>> Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Much > >>>>>>>> appreciated. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks & Regards, > >>>>>>>>> Hailey > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> >
