Okay, I had some doubts in terms of reassign-partitions case. I was not sure whether we need ISR to check post condition of partition reassignment. But I think we can rely on assigned replicas - the workflow in reassignPartitions is the following: 1. Update AR in ZK with OAR + RAR. ... 10. Update AR in ZK with RAR. 11. Update the /admin/reassign_partitions path in ZK to remove this partition. 12. After electing leader, the replicas and isr information changes. So resend the update metadata request to every broker.
In other words AR becomes RAR right before removing partitions from the admin path. I think we can consider (with a little approximation) reassignment completed if AR == RAR. If it's okay, I will remove ISR and add topic config in one change as discussed earlier. Thanks, Andrii Biletskyi On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > Andrii, > > Another thing. We decided not to add the lag info in TMR. To be consistent, > we probably also want to remove ISR from TMR since only the leader knows > it. We can punt on adding any new request from getting ISR. ISR is mostly > useful for monitoring. Currently, one can determine if a replica is in ISR > from the lag metrics (a replica is in ISR if its lag is <=0). > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Andrii Biletskyi < > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > Jun, > > > > I like your approach to AlterTopicReques semantics! Sounds like > > we linearize all request fields to ReplicaAssignment - I will definitely > > try this out to ensure there are no other pitfalls. > > > > With regards to multiple instructions in one batch per topic. For me > > this sounds reasonable too. We discussed last time that it's pretty > > strange we give users schema that supports batching and at the > > same time introduce restrictions to the way batching can be used > > (in this case - only one instruction per topic). But now, when we give > > users everything they need to avoid such misleading use cases (if > > we implement the previous item - user will be able to specify/change > > all fields in one instruction) - it might be a good justification to > > prohibit > > serving such requests. > > > > Any objections? > > > > Thanks, > > Andrii BIletskyi > > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > Andrii, > > > > > > Thanks for the update. > > > > > > For your second point, I agree that if a single AlterTopicRequest can > > make > > > multiple changes, there is no need to support the same topic included > > more > > > than once in the request. > > > > > > Now about the semantics in your first question. I was thinking that we > > can > > > do the following. > > > a. If ReplicaAssignment is specified, we expect that this will specify > > the > > > replica assignment for all partitions in the topic. For now, we can > have > > > the constraint that there could be more partitions than existing ones, > > but > > > can't be less. In this case, both partitions and replicas are ignored. > > Then > > > for each partition, we do one of the followings. > > > a1. If the partition doesn't exist, add the partition with the replica > > > assignment directly to the topic path in ZK. > > > a2. If the partition exists and the new replica assignment is not the > > same > > > as the existing one, include it in the reassign partition json. If the > > json > > > is not empty, write it to the reassignment path in ZK to trigger > > partition > > > reassignment. > > > b. Otherwise, if replicas is specified, generate new ReplicaAssignment > > for > > > existing partitions. If partitions is specified (assuming it's larger), > > > generate ReplicaAssignment for the new partitions as well. Then go back > > to > > > step a to make a decision. > > > c. Otherwise, if only partitions is specified, add assignments of > > existing > > > partitions to ReplicaAssignment. Generate assignments to the new > > partitions > > > and add them to ReplicaAssignment. Then go back to step a to make a > > > decision. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Andrii Biletskyi < > > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > Can we come to some agreement in terms of the second item from > > > > the email above? This blocks me from updating and uploading the > > > > patch. Also the new schedule for the weekly calls doesn't work very > > > > well for me - it's 1 am in my timezone :) - so I'd rather we confirm > > > > everything that is possible by email. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Andrii Biletskyi > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Andrii Biletskyi < > > > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > > > > > > As said above, I spent some time thinking about AlterTopicRequest > > > > > semantics and batching. > > > > > > > > > > Firstly, about AlterTopicRequest. Our goal here is to see whether > we > > > > > can suggest some simple semantics and at the same time let users > > > > > change different things in one instruction (hereinafter > instruction - > > > is > > > > > one of the entries in batch request). > > > > > We can resolve arguments according to this schema: > > > > > 1) If ReplicaAsignment is specified: > > > > > it's a reassign partitions request > > > > > 2) If either Partitions or ReplicationFactor is specified: > > > > > a) If Partitions specified - this is increase partitions case > > > > > b) If ReplicationFactor is specified - this means we need to > > > > > automatically > > > > > regenerate replica assignment and treat it as reassign > partitions > > > > > request > > > > > Note: this algorithm is a bit inconsistent with the > > CreateTopicRequest > > > - > > > > > with > > > > > ReplicaAssignment specified there user can implicitly define > > Partitions > > > > > and > > > > > ReplicationFactor, in AlterTopicRequest those are completely > > different > > > > > things, > > > > > i.e. you can't include new partitions to the ReplicaAssignment to > > > > > implicitly ask > > > > > controller to increase partitions - controller will simply return > > > > > InvalidReplicaAssignment, > > > > > because you included unknown partitions. > > > > > > > > > > Secondly, multiple instructions for one topic in batch request. I > > have > > > a > > > > > feeling > > > > > it becomes a really big mess now, so suggestions are highly > > appreciated > > > > > here! > > > > > Our goal is to consider whether we can let users add multiple > > > > instructions > > > > > for one topic in one batch but at the same time make it transparent > > > > enough > > > > > so > > > > > we can support blocking on request completion, for that we need to > > > > analyze > > > > > from the request what is the final expected state of the topic. > > > > > And the latter one seems to me a tough issue. > > > > > Consider the following AlterTopicRequest: > > > > > [1) topic1: change ReplicationFactor from 2 to 3, > > > > > 2) topic1: change ReplicaAssignment (taking into account RF is 3 > > now), > > > > > 3) topic2: change ReplicaAssignment (just to include multiple > > topics) > > > > > 4) topic1: change ReplicationFactor from 3 to 1, > > > > > 5) topic1: change ReplicaAssignment again (taking into account RF > > is 1 > > > > > now) > > > > > ] > > > > > As we discussed earlier, controller will handle it as alter-topic > > > command > > > > > and > > > > > reassign-partitions. First of all, it will scan all > ReplicaAssignment > > > and > > > > > assembly > > > > > those to one json to create admin path /reassign_partitions once > > > needed. > > > > > Now, user would expect we execute instruction sequentially, but we > > > can't > > > > > do it > > > > > because only one reassign-partitions procedure can be in progress - > > > when > > > > > should we trigger reassign-partition - after 1) or after 4)? And > what > > > > > about topic2 - > > > > > we will break the order, but it was supposed we execute > instructions > > > > > sequentially. > > > > > Overall, the logic seems to be very sophisticated, which is a bad > > sign. > > > > > Conceptually, > > > > > I think the root problem is that we imply there is an order in > > > sequential > > > > > instructions, > > > > > but instructions themselves are asynchronous, so really you can't > > > > > guarantee any order. > > > > > I'm thinking about such solutions now: > > > > > 1) Prohibit multiple instructions (this seems reasonable if we let > > > users > > > > > change multiple > > > > > things in scope of now instructions - see the first item) > > > > > 2) Break apart again AlterTopic and ReassignPartitions - if the > > > > > reassignment case is > > > > > the only problem here, which I'm not sure about. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Andrii Biletskyi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:59 AM, Andrii Biletskyi < > > > > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Guys, > > > > >> > > > > >> Thank you for your time. A short summary of our discussion. > > > > >> Answering previous items: > > > > >> > > > > >> 1. 2. I will double check existing error codes to align the list > of > > > > >> errors that needs to be added. > > > > >> > > > > >> 3. We agreed to think again about the batch requests semantics. > > > > >> The main concern is that users would expect we allow executing > > > > >> multiple instructions for one topic in one batch. > > > > >> I will start implementation and check whether there are any > > > impediments > > > > >> to handle it this way. > > > > >> > > > > >> The same for AlterTopicRequest - I will try to make request > > semantics > > > > >> as easy as possible and allow users change different things at one > > > > >> time - e.g. change nr of partitions and replicas in one > instruction. > > > > >> > > > > >> 4. We agreed not to add to TMR lag information. > > > > >> > > > > >> 5. We discussed preferred replica command and it was pointed out > > > > >> that generally users shouldn't call this command manually now > since > > > > >> this is automatically handled by the cluster. > > > > >> If there are no objections (especially from devops people) I will > > > remove > > > > >> respective request. > > > > >> > > > > >> 6. As discussed AdminClient API is a phase 2 and will go after > Wire > > > > >> Protocol extensions. It will be finalized as java-doc after I > > complete > > > > >> patch for phase 1 - Wire Protocol + server-side code handling > > > requests. > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Andrii Biletskyi > > > > >> > > > > >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Hey Andrii, thanks for all the hard work on this, it has come a > > long > > > > way. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> A couple questions and comments on this. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> For the errors, can we do the following: > > > > >>> 1. Remove IllegalArgument from the name, we haven't used that > > > > convention > > > > >>> for other errors. > > > > >>> 2. Normalize this list with the existing errors. For example, > > > elsewhere > > > > >>> when you give an invalid topic name we give back an > > > > InvalidTopicException > > > > >>> but this is proposing a new error for that. It would be good that > > > these > > > > >>> kinds of errors are handled the same way across all requests in > the > > > > >>> protocol. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Other comments: > > > > >>> 3. I don't understand MultipleInstructionsForOneTopic > > > > >>> and MultipleTopicInstructionsInOneBatch and the description is > > quite > > > > >>> vague. > > > > >>> There is some implicit assumption in this proposal about how > > batching > > > > >>> will > > > > >>> be done that doesn't seem to be explained. > > > > >>> 4. I think adding replica lag to the metadata request is out of > > place > > > > and > > > > >>> should not be in the metadata request. Two reasons: a. This is > > > > something > > > > >>> that can only be answered by the leader for that partition. So > > > > querying N > > > > >>> partitions fundamentally mean querying N brokers (roughly). This > is > > > > >>> different from the other properties which are "shared knowledge". > > > > >>> b. This is a monitoring property not a configuration/metadata > > > > property. I > > > > >>> recommend we remove this here and in the future add an API that > > gets > > > > all > > > > >>> the monitoring stats from the server including lag. Adding all > > these > > > to > > > > >>> the > > > > >>> metadata request won't make sense, right? > > > > >>> 5. This includes a special request for preferred replica leader > > > > >>> election. I > > > > >>> feel that we should not expose an API for this because the user > > > should > > > > >>> not > > > > >>> be in the business of managing leaders. We have gotten this > feature > > > to > > > > >>> the > > > > >>> point where preferred leadership election is enabled > > automatically. I > > > > >>> think > > > > >>> we should go further in that direction and do whatever work is > > > required > > > > >>> to > > > > >>> make this the only option rather than trying to institute public > > apis > > > > for > > > > >>> manually controlling it. > > > > >>> 6. The API changes we discussed for the java api still aren't > > > reflected > > > > >>> in > > > > >>> the proposal. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -Jay > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Andrii Biletskyi < > > > > >>> andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Hi all, > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > I've updated KIP-4 page to include all previously discussed > items > > > > such > > > > >>> as: > > > > >>> > new error codes, merged alter-topic and reassign-partitions > > > requests, > > > > >>> added > > > > >>> > TMR_V1. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > It'd be great if we concentrate on the Errors+Wire Protocol > > schema > > > > and > > > > >>> > discuss > > > > >>> > any remaining issues today, since first patch will include only > > > > >>> server-side > > > > >>> > implementation. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Thanks, > > > > >>> > Andrii Biletskyi > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Andrii Biletskyi < > > > > >>> > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > 1. Yes, this will be much easier. Okay, let's add it. > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > 2, Okay. This will differ a little bit from the way currently > > > > >>> > > kafka-topics.sh handles alter-topic command, but I think it's > > > > >>> > > a reasonable restriction. > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > I'll update KIP acordingly to our weekly call. > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > Thanks, > > > > >>> > > Andrii Biletskyi > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > >> 1. Yes, lag is probably only going to be useful for the > admin > > > > >>> client. > > > > >>> > >> However, so is isr. It seems to me that we should get lag > and > > > isr > > > > >>> from > > > > >>> > the > > > > >>> > >> same request. I was thinking that we can just extend TMR by > > > > changing > > > > >>> > >> replicas from an array of int to an array of (int, lag) > pairs. > > > Is > > > > >>> that > > > > >>> > too > > > > >>> > >> complicated? > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> 3. I was thinking that we just don't allow the cli to change > > > more > > > > >>> than > > > > >>> > one > > > > >>> > >> thing at a time. So, you will get an error if you want to > > change > > > > >>> both > > > > >>> > >> partitions and configs. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> Thanks, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> Jun > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Andrii Biletskyi < > > > > >>> > >> andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > Jun, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > 1. Yes, seems we can add lag info to the TMR. But before > > that > > > I > > > > >>> wonder > > > > >>> > >> > whether there are other reasons we need this info except > for > > > > >>> reassign > > > > >>> > >> > partition command? As we discussed earlier the problem > with > > > poor > > > > >>> > >> > monitoring capabilities for reassign-partitions (as > > currently > > > we > > > > >>> only > > > > >>> > >> > inform > > > > >>> > >> > users Completed/In Progress per partition) may require > > > separate > > > > >>> > >> solution. > > > > >>> > >> > We were thinking about separate Wire protocol request. > And I > > > > >>> actually > > > > >>> > >> like > > > > >>> > >> > your > > > > >>> > >> > idea about adding some sort of BrokerMetadataRequest for > > these > > > > >>> > purposes. > > > > >>> > >> > I actually think we can cover some other items (like > > > > >>> rack-awareness) > > > > >>> > but > > > > >>> > >> > for > > > > >>> > >> > me it deserves a separate KIP really. > > > > >>> > >> > Also, adding Replica->Lag map per partition will make > > > > >>> > >> TopicMetadataResponse > > > > >>> > >> > very sophisticated: > > > > >>> > >> > Map[TopicName, Map[PartitionId, Map[ReplicaId, Lag]]. > > > > >>> > >> > Maybe we need to leave it for a moment and propose new > > request > > > > >>> rather > > > > >>> > >> than > > > > >>> > >> > making a new step towards one "monster" request. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > 2. Yes, error per topic. > > > > >>> > >> > The only question is whether we should execute at least > the > > > very > > > > >>> first > > > > >>> > >> > alter topic > > > > >>> > >> > command from the "duplicated" topic set or return error > for > > > all > > > > >>> ... I > > > > >>> > >> think > > > > >>> > >> > the more > > > > >>> > >> > predictable and reasonable option for clients would be > > > returning > > > > >>> > errors > > > > >>> > >> for > > > > >>> > >> > all > > > > >>> > >> > duplicated topics. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > 3. Hm, yes. Actually we also have "change topic config" > > there. > > > > >>> But it > > > > >>> > is > > > > >>> > >> > not > > > > >>> > >> > related to such "replication" commands as increase > replicas > > or > > > > >>> change > > > > >>> > >> > replica > > > > >>> > >> > assignment. > > > > >>> > >> > This will make CLI implementation a bit strange: if user > > > > specifies > > > > >>> > >> increase > > > > >>> > >> > partitions and change topic config in one line - taking > into > > > > >>> account > > > > >>> > 2. > > > > >>> > >> we > > > > >>> > >> > will have > > > > >>> > >> > to create two separate alter topic requests, which were > > > designed > > > > >>> as > > > > >>> > >> batch > > > > >>> > >> > requests :), > > > > >>> > >> > but probably we can live with it. > > > > >>> > >> > Okay, I will think about a separate error code to cover > such > > > > >>> cases. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > 4. We will need InvalidArgumentTopic (e.g. contains > > prohibited > > > > >>> chars), > > > > >>> > >> > IAPartitions, IAReplicas, IAReplicaAssignment, > > > > >>> IATopicConfiguration. > > > > >>> > >> > A server side implementation will be a little bit messy > > (like > > > > >>> dozens > > > > >>> > "if > > > > >>> > >> > this then this > > > > >>> > >> > error code") but maybe we should think about clients at > the > > > > first > > > > >>> > place > > > > >>> > >> > here. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > Thanks, > > > > >>> > >> > Andrii Biletskyi > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Jun Rao < > j...@confluent.io> > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > 1. For the lags, we can add a new field "lags" per > > > partition. > > > > It > > > > >>> > will > > > > >>> > >> > > return for each replica that's not in isr, the replica > id > > > and > > > > >>> the > > > > >>> > lag > > > > >>> > >> in > > > > >>> > >> > > messages. Also, if TMR is sent to a non-leader, the > > response > > > > can > > > > >>> > just > > > > >>> > >> > > include an empty array for isr and lags. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > 2. So, we will just return a topic level error for the > > > > >>> duplicated > > > > >>> > >> topics, > > > > >>> > >> > > right? > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > 3. Yes, it's true that today, one can specify both > > > partitions > > > > >>> and > > > > >>> > >> > > replicaAssignment in the TopicCommand. However, > partitions > > > is > > > > >>> > actually > > > > >>> > >> > > ignored. So, it will be clearer if we don't allow users > to > > > do > > > > >>> this. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > 4. How many specific error codes like InvalidPartitions > > and > > > > >>> > >> > InvalidReplicas > > > > >>> > >> > > are needed? If it's not that many, giving out more > > specific > > > > >>> error > > > > >>> > >> will be > > > > >>> > >> > > useful for non-java clients. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > Thanks, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > Jun > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Andrii Biletskyi < > > > > >>> > >> > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > Guys, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > Thanks for the discussion! > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > Summary: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > 1. Q: How KAFKA-1367 (isr is inconsistent in brokers' > > > > metadata > > > > >>> > >> cache) > > > > >>> > >> > can > > > > >>> > >> > > > affect implementation? > > > > >>> > >> > > > A: We can fix this issue for the leading broker - > > > > >>> > ReplicaManager > > > > >>> > >> > (or > > > > >>> > >> > > > Partition) > > > > >>> > >> > > > component should have accurate isr list, then > > with > > > > >>> leading > > > > >>> > >> > broker > > > > >>> > >> > > > having correct > > > > >>> > >> > > > info, to do a describe-topic we will need to > > > define > > > > >>> > leading > > > > >>> > >> > > brokers > > > > >>> > >> > > > for partitions > > > > >>> > >> > > > and ask those for a correct isr list. > > > > >>> > >> > > > Also, we should consider adding lag > information > > to > > > > >>> TMR for > > > > >>> > >> each > > > > >>> > >> > > > follower for > > > > >>> > >> > > > partition reassignment, as Jun suggested > above. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > 2. Q: What if user adds different alter commands for > the > > > > same > > > > >>> > topic > > > > >>> > >> in > > > > >>> > >> > > > scope > > > > >>> > >> > > > of one batch request? > > > > >>> > >> > > > A: Because of the async nature of > AlterTopicRequest > > it > > > > >>> will be > > > > >>> > >> very > > > > >>> > >> > > > hard then > > > > >>> > >> > > > to "assemble" the expected (in terms of > checking > > > > >>> whether > > > > >>> > >> > request > > > > >>> > >> > > is > > > > >>> > >> > > > complete) > > > > >>> > >> > > > result if we let users do this. Also it will > be > > > very > > > > >>> > >> confusing. > > > > >>> > >> > > It > > > > >>> > >> > > > was proposed not to > > > > >>> > >> > > > let users do this (probably add new Error for > > such > > > > >>> cases). > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > 3. Q: AlterTopicRequest semantics: now when we merged > > > > >>> AlterTopic > > > > >>> > and > > > > >>> > >> > > > ReassingPartitons in which order AlterTopic > > fields > > > > >>> should > > > > >>> > be > > > > >>> > >> > > > resolved? > > > > >>> > >> > > > A: This item is not clear. There was a proposal to > > let > > > > >>> user > > > > >>> > >> change > > > > >>> > >> > > only > > > > >>> > >> > > > one thing at a time, e.g. specify either new > > > > >>> Replicas, or > > > > >>> > >> > > > ReplicaAssignment. > > > > >>> > >> > > > This can be a simple solution, but it's a very > > > > strict > > > > >>> > rule. > > > > >>> > >> > E.g. > > > > >>> > >> > > > currently with > > > > >>> > >> > > > TopicCommand user can increase nr of > partitions > > > and > > > > >>> define > > > > >>> > >> > > replica > > > > >>> > >> > > > assignment > > > > >>> > >> > > > for newly added partitions. Taking into > account > > > item > > > > >>> 2. > > > > >>> > this > > > > >>> > >> > will > > > > >>> > >> > > > be even harder > > > > >>> > >> > > > for user to achieve this. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > 4. Q: Do we need such accurate errors returned from > the > > > > >>> server: > > > > >>> > >> > > > InvalidArgumentPartitions, > > > > >>> > >> > > > InvalidArgumentReplicas etc. > > > > >>> > >> > > > A: I started implementation to add proposed error > > > codes > > > > >>> and > > > > >>> > now > > > > >>> > >> I > > > > >>> > >> > > think > > > > >>> > >> > > > probably > > > > >>> > >> > > > InvalidArgumentError should be sufficient. We > > can > > > do > > > > >>> > simple > > > > >>> > >> > > > validations on > > > > >>> > >> > > > the client side (e.g. AdminClient can ensure > nr > > of > > > > >>> > >> partitions > > > > >>> > >> > > > argument is positive), > > > > >>> > >> > > > others - which can be covered only on server > > > > (probably > > > > >>> > >> invalid > > > > >>> > >> > > > topic config, > > > > >>> > >> > > > replica assignment includes dead broker etc) - > > > will > > > > be > > > > >>> > done > > > > >>> > >> on > > > > >>> > >> > > > server, and in case > > > > >>> > >> > > > of invalid argument we will return > > > > >>> InvalidArgumentError > > > > >>> > >> without > > > > >>> > >> > > > specifying the > > > > >>> > >> > > > concrete field. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > It'd be great if we could cover these remaining > issues, > > > > looks > > > > >>> like > > > > >>> > >> they > > > > >>> > >> > > are > > > > >>> > >> > > > minor, > > > > >>> > >> > > > at least related to specific messages, not the overall > > > > >>> protocol. > > > > >>> > - I > > > > >>> > >> > > think > > > > >>> > >> > > > with that I can > > > > >>> > >> > > > update confluence page and update patch to reflect all > > > > >>> discussed > > > > >>> > >> items. > > > > >>> > >> > > > This patch > > > > >>> > >> > > > will probably include Wire protocol messages and > > > server-side > > > > >>> code > > > > >>> > to > > > > >>> > >> > > handle > > > > >>> > >> > > > new > > > > >>> > >> > > > requests. AdminClient and cli-tool implementation can > be > > > the > > > > >>> next > > > > >>> > >> step. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > Thanks, > > > > >>> > >> > > > Andrii Biletskyi > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Jun Rao < > > > j...@confluent.io> > > > > >>> > wrote: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > Andrii, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > 500. I think what you suggested also sounds > > reasonable. > > > > >>> Since > > > > >>> > ISR > > > > >>> > >> is > > > > >>> > >> > > only > > > > >>> > >> > > > > maintained accurately at the leader, TMR can return > > ISR > > > if > > > > >>> the > > > > >>> > >> broker > > > > >>> > >> > > is > > > > >>> > >> > > > > the leader of a partition. Otherwise, we can return > an > > > > empty > > > > >>> > ISR. > > > > >>> > >> For > > > > >>> > >> > > > > partition reassignment, it would be useful to know > the > > > lag > > > > >>> of > > > > >>> > each > > > > >>> > >> > > > > follower. Again, the leader knows this info. We can > > > > probably > > > > >>> > >> include > > > > >>> > >> > > that > > > > >>> > >> > > > > info in TMR as well. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > 300. I think it's probably reasonable to restrict > > > > >>> > >> AlterTopicRequest > > > > >>> > >> > to > > > > >>> > >> > > > > change only one thing at a time, i.e., either > > > partitions, > > > > >>> > >> replicas, > > > > >>> > >> > > > replica > > > > >>> > >> > > > > assignment or config. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > Jun > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Andrii Biletskyi < > > > > >>> > >> > > > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > Jun, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > 404. Great, thanks! > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > 500. If I understand correctly KAFKA-1367 says ISR > > > part > > > > >>> of TMR > > > > >>> > >> may > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > be inconsistent. If so, then I believe all admin > > > > commands > > > > >>> but > > > > >>> > >> > > > > describeTopic > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > are not affected. Let me emphasize that it's about > > > > >>> AdminClient > > > > >>> > >> > > > > operations, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > not about Wire Protocol requests. What I mean: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > To verify AdminClient.createTopic we will need > > > > >>> (consistent) > > > > >>> > >> > 'topics' > > > > >>> > >> > > > set > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > from TMR (we don't need isr) > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > To verify alterTopic - again, probably 'topics' > and > > > > >>> 'assigned > > > > >>> > >> > > > replicas' + > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > configs > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > To verify deleteTopic - only 'topics' > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > To verify preferredReplica - 'leader', 'assigned > > > > replicas' > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > To verify reassignPartitions - 'assigned > replicas' ? > > > > (I'm > > > > >>> not > > > > >>> > >> sure > > > > >>> > >> > > > about > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > this one) > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > If everything above is correct, then > > > > >>> AdminClient.describeTopic > > > > >>> > >> is > > > > >>> > >> > the > > > > >>> > >> > > > > only > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > command under risk. We can actually workaround it > - > > > find > > > > >>> out > > > > >>> > the > > > > >>> > >> > > leader > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > broker > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > and ask TMR that leading broker to get up-to-date > > isr > > > > >>> list. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > Bottom line: looks like 1367 is a separate issue, > > and > > > is > > > > >>> not a > > > > >>> > >> > > blocker > > > > >>> > >> > > > > for > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > this > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > KIP. I'm a bit concerned about adding new requests > > as > > > a > > > > >>> > >> must-have > > > > >>> > >> > > part > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > of this KIP when we don't know what we want to > > include > > > > to > > > > >>> > those > > > > >>> > >> > > > requests. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > Also, I'd like to write down the new > > AlterTopicRequest > > > > >>> > semantics > > > > >>> > >> > (if > > > > >>> > >> > > we > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > decide > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > to include replicas there and merge it with > > > > >>> > >> > > ReassignPartitionsRequest) > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > 300. AlterTopicRequest => [TopicName Partitions > > > Replicas > > > > >>> > >> > > > > ReplicaAssignment > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > [AddedConfigEntry] [DeletedConfig]] > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > The fields are resolved in this sequence: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > 1. Either partition or replicas is defined: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > ---1.1. ReplicaAssignment is not defined - > generate > > > > >>> automatic > > > > >>> > >> > replica > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > assignment > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > for newly added partitions or for > replicas > > > > >>> parameter > > > > >>> > >> > > > increased > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > ---1.2. ReplicaAssignment is defined - increase > > topic > > > > >>> > >> partitions if > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > 'partitions' defined, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > reassign partitions according to > > > > >>> ReplicaAssignment > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > 2. Neither partition nor replicas is defined: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > ---2.1. ReplicaAssignment is defined - it's a > > reassign > > > > >>> > replicas > > > > >>> > >> > > request > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > ---2.2. ReplicaAssignment is not defined - just > > change > > > > >>> topic > > > > >>> > >> > configs > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > 3. Config fields are handled always and > > independently > > > > from > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > partitions+replicas/replicaAssingment > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > A bit sophisticated, but should cover all cases. > > > Another > > > > >>> > option > > > > >>> > >> - > > > > >>> > >> > we > > > > >>> > >> > > > can > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > say you can define either partitions+replicas or > > > > >>> > >> replicaAssignment. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > 300.5. There is also a new question related to > > > > >>> > >> AlterTopicRequest - > > > > >>> > >> > > > should > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > we > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > allow users multiple alter-topic instructions for > > one > > > > >>> topic in > > > > >>> > >> one > > > > >>> > >> > > > batch? > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > I think if we go this way, user will expect we > > > optimize > > > > >>> and > > > > >>> > >> group > > > > >>> > >> > > > > requests > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > for one topic, but it will add a lot of burden, > > > > especially > > > > >>> > taken > > > > >>> > >> > into > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > account > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > async semantics of the AlterTopicRequest. I'd > rather > > > > >>> return > > > > >>> > some > > > > >>> > >> > > error > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > code, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > or ignore all but first. Thoughts? > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > Thanks, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > Andrii Biletskyi > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Jun Rao < > > > > >>> j...@confluent.io> > > > > >>> > >> wrote: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > Andrii, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > 404. Jay and I chatted a bit. We agreed to leave > > > > >>> > >> > createTopicRequest > > > > >>> > >> > > > as > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > async for now. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > There is another thing. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > 500. Currently, we have this issue (KAFKA-1367) > > that > > > > >>> the ISR > > > > >>> > >> in > > > > >>> > >> > the > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > metadata cache can be out of sync. The reason is > > > that > > > > >>> ISR is > > > > >>> > >> > really > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > maintained at the leader. We can potentially > add a > > > new > > > > >>> > >> > > > > BrokerMetaRequest, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > which will return useful stats specific to a > > broker. > > > > >>> Such > > > > >>> > >> stats > > > > >>> > >> > can > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > include > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > (1) for each partition whose leader is on this > > > broker, > > > > >>> the > > > > >>> > ISR > > > > >>> > >> > and > > > > >>> > >> > > > the > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > lag > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > (in messages) for each of the followers, (2) > space > > > > used > > > > >>> per > > > > >>> > >> > > > partition, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > (3) > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > remaining space per log dir (not sure how easy > it > > is > > > > to > > > > >>> get > > > > >>> > >> this > > > > >>> > >> > > > info). > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > If > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > we have this new request, we can probably remove > > the > > > > ISR > > > > >>> > part > > > > >>> > >> > from > > > > >>> > >> > > > TMR > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > v1. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > Currently, the producer/consumer client don't > > really > > > > >>> care > > > > >>> > >> about > > > > >>> > >> > > ISR. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > The > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > admin client will then issue BrokerMetaRequest > to > > > find > > > > >>> out > > > > >>> > ISR > > > > >>> > >> > and > > > > >>> > >> > > > > other > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > stats. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > Jun > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Andrii > Biletskyi > > < > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > A summary of our discussion: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > 201. Q: Cluster updates in backward compatible > > > way. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > A: Add topicConfigs map property and > > > change > > > > >>> > >> > constructor, > > > > >>> > >> > > > this > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > shouldn't break Consumer/Producer since TMR is > > > used > > > > in > > > > >>> > >> > > > NetworkClient, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > not directly by Consumer/Producer. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > 300. Q: Can we merge AlterTopic and > > > > ReassignPartitions > > > > >>> > >> > requests? > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > A: It looks like in terms of Wire > > Protocol > > > > >>> > partition > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > reassignment > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > can > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > be just an application of AlterTopicRequest. > On > > > the > > > > >>> > >> AdminClient > > > > >>> > >> > > > side > > > > >>> > >> > > > > we > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > can > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > split this into two separate methods, if > needed. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > Some additional items that were added today: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > 400. Q: Do we need ListTopicsRequest, we can > use > > > TMR > > > > >>> for > > > > >>> > >> this > > > > >>> > >> > > > > purpose. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > A: The answer depends on whether we > can > > > > >>> leverage > > > > >>> > >> > > ListTopics > > > > >>> > >> > > > > in > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > consumer/producer, because the only benefit of > > the > > > > >>> > >> ListTopics > > > > >>> > >> > is > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > performance > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > optimization, otherwise it doesn't worth it. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > 401. Q: AdminClient.topicExists - do we need > it? > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > A: AdminClient.listTopics should be > > > > >>> sufficient. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > 402. Review AdminClient API and use separate > > > objects > > > > >>> > >> instead of > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > collections > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > for methods arguments / return results (e.g. > > > > >>> > >> preferredReplica > > > > >>> > >> > > > accepts > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > Map<String, List<Int>> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > might be better to add separate java object) > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > 403. Error number in KIP-4 (100x). Currently > > there > > > > >>> are no > > > > >>> > >> > > dedicated > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > ranges > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > for errors, we will probably continue doing it > > > this > > > > >>> way. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > 404. There were some concerns again about the > > > > >>> asynchronous > > > > >>> > >> > > > semantics > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > of the admin requests. Jun and Jay to agree > > > > >>> separately how > > > > >>> > >> we > > > > >>> > >> > > want > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > to handle it. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > Please add / correct me if I missed something. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > Andrii Biletskyi > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Andrii > > Biletskyi < > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > I wasn't able to send email to our thread > (it > > > says > > > > >>> we > > > > >>> > >> > exceeded > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > message > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > size limit :)). > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > So I'm starting the new one. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > Jun, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks again for the review. Answering your > > > > >>> comments: > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > 201. I'm not sure I understand how can we > > evolve > > > > >>> Cluster > > > > >>> > >> in > > > > >>> > >> > > > > backward > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > compatible way. In my understanding topic > > > configs > > > > >>> are > > > > >>> > not > > > > >>> > >> > > > returned > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > currently - > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > in TMR_V0. Thus we need to add new property > in > > > > >>> Cluster - > > > > >>> > >> smth > > > > >>> > >> > > > like > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > private final Map<String, List<ConfigEntry>> > > > > >>> > topicConfigs; > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > Which affects Cluster constructor, which is > > used > > > > in > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > MetadataResponse.java > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > - not sure whether we can change Cluster > this > > > way > > > > so > > > > >>> > it's > > > > >>> > >> > > > backward > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > compatible, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > I suppose - no. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > Let me know if I'm missing something... > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > 300. Hm, so you propose to give up > > > > >>> ReassignPartition as > > > > >>> > a > > > > >>> > >> > > > separate > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > command? > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > That's interesting, let's discuss it today > in > > > > >>> detail. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > Two small points here: 1) afaik currently > > > > >>> > >> replica-assignment > > > > >>> > >> > > > > argument > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > in > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > alter-topic > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > (from TopicCommand) doesn't reassign > > partitions, > > > > it > > > > >>> lets > > > > >>> > >> > users > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > specify > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > replica > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > assignment for newly added partition > > > > >>> > >> (AddPartitionsListener) > > > > >>> > >> > 2) > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > ReassignPartitions > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > command involves a little bit more than just > > > > >>> changing > > > > >>> > >> replica > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > assignment > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > in zk. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > People are struggling with partition > > > reassignment > > > > >>> so I > > > > >>> > >> think > > > > >>> > >> > > it's > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > good > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > to > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > have explicit > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > request for it so we can handle it > > > independently, > > > > >>> also > > > > >>> > as > > > > >>> > >> > > > mentioned > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > earlier we'll > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > probably add in future some better status > > check > > > > >>> > procedure > > > > >>> > >> for > > > > >>> > >> > > > this > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > long-running > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > request. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > 301. Good point. We also agreed to use > > clientId > > > as > > > > >>> an > > > > >>> > >> > > identifier > > > > >>> > >> > > > > for > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > the > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > requester - > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > whether it's a producer client or admin. I > > think > > > > we > > > > >>> can > > > > >>> > go > > > > >>> > >> > with > > > > >>> > >> > > > > -1/-1 > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > approach. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > 302. Again, as said above replica-assignment > > in > > > > >>> > >> alter-topic > > > > >>> > >> > > > doesn't > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > change > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > replica assignment of the existing > partitions. > > > But > > > > >>> we > > > > >>> > can > > > > >>> > >> > think > > > > >>> > >> > > > > about > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > it > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > in general - > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > how can we change topic replication factor? > > The > > > > >>> easy way > > > > >>> > >> - we > > > > >>> > >> > > > don't > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > need > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > it, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > we can use reassign partitions. Not sure > > whether > > > > we > > > > >>> want > > > > >>> > >> to > > > > >>> > >> > add > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > special > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > logic > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > to treat this case... > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > 303.1. Okay, sure, I'll generalize > > > topicExists(). > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > 303.2. I think, yes, we need separate verify > > > > >>> methods as > > > > >>> > a > > > > >>> > >> > > status > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > check > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > procedure, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > because respective requests are long > running, > > > and > > > > >>> CLI > > > > >>> > user > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > potentially > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > will > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > asynchronously call reassign-partitions, do > > > other > > > > >>> stuff > > > > >>> > >> (e.g. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > create > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > topics) periodically > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > checking status of the partition > reassignment. > > > > >>> Anyway > > > > >>> > >> we'll > > > > >>> > >> > > have > > > > >>> > >> > > > to > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > implement this logic > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > because it's a criterion of the completed > > Future > > > > of > > > > >>> the > > > > >>> > >> > > reassign > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > partitions async > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > call, we'll to have make those methods just > > > > public. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > 303.3. If preferredReplica returns > > > > >>> Future<Map<String, > > > > >>> > >> > Errors>> > > > > >>> > >> > > > than > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > what > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > is an error > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > in terms of preferred replica leader > election? > > > As > > > > I > > > > >>> > >> > understand > > > > >>> > >> > > we > > > > >>> > >> > > > > can > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > only > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > check > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > whether it has succeeded (leader == AR.head) > > or > > > > not > > > > >>> > >> _yet_. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > 304.1. Sure, let's add timeout to > > > > reassign/preferred > > > > >>> > >> replica. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > 304.2. This can be finalized after we > discuss > > > 300. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > 305. Misprints - thanks, fixed. > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > Andrii Biletskyi > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
