Hi All, Do you have any additional comments on this KIP?
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 9:17 PM, xiongqi wu <xiongq...@gmail.com> wrote: > on 2) > The offsetmap is built starting from dirty segment. > The compaction starts from the beginning of the log partition. That's how > it ensure the deletion of tomb keys. > I will double check tomorrow. > > Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 6:46 PM Brett Rann <br...@zendesk.com.invalid> > wrote: > >> To just clarify a bit on 1. whether there's an external storage/DB isn't >> relevant here. >> Compacted topics allow a tombstone record to be sent (a null value for a >> key) which >> currently will result in old values for that key being deleted if some >> conditions are met. >> There are existing controls to make sure the old values will stay around >> for a minimum >> time at least, but no dedicated control to ensure the tombstone will >> delete >> within a >> maximum time. >> >> One popular reason that maximum time for deletion is desirable right now >> is >> GDPR with >> PII. But we're not proposing any GDPR awareness in kafka, just being able >> to guarantee >> a max time where a tombstoned key will be removed from the compacted >> topic. >> >> on 2) >> huh, i thought it kept track of the first dirty segment and didn't >> recompact older "clean" ones. >> But I didn't look at code or test for that. >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 10:57 AM xiongqi wu <xiongq...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > 1, Owner of data (in this sense, kafka is the not the owner of data) >> > should keep track of lifecycle of the data in some external storage/DB. >> > The owner determines when to delete the data and send the delete >> request to >> > kafka. Kafka doesn't know about the content of data but to provide a >> mean >> > for deletion. >> > >> > 2 , each time compaction runs, it will start from first segments (no >> > matter if it is compacted or not). The time estimation here is only used >> > to determine whether we should run compaction on this log partition. So >> we >> > only need to estimate uncompacted segments. >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Hey Xiongqi, >> > > >> > > Thanks for the update. I have two questions for the latest KIP. >> > > >> > > 1) The motivation section says that one use case is to delete PII >> > (Personal >> > > Identifiable information) data within 7 days while keeping non-PII >> > > indefinitely in compacted format. I suppose the use-case depends on >> the >> > > application to determine when to delete those PII data. Could you >> explain >> > > how can application reliably determine the set of keys that should be >> > > deleted? Is application required to always messages from the topic >> after >> > > every restart and determine the keys to be deleted by looking at >> message >> > > timestamp, or is application supposed to persist the key-> timstamp >> > > information in a separate persistent storage system? >> > > >> > > 2) It is mentioned in the KIP that "we only need to estimate earliest >> > > message timestamp for un-compacted log segments because the deletion >> > > requests that belong to compacted segments have already been >> processed". >> > > Not sure if it is correct. If a segment is compacted before user sends >> > > message to delete a key in this segment, it seems that we still need >> to >> > > ensure that the segment will be compacted again within the given time >> > after >> > > the deletion is requested, right? >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Dong >> > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 10:27 AM, xiongqi wu <xiongq...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi Xiaohe, >> > > > >> > > > Quick note: >> > > > 1) Use minimum of segment.ms and max.compaction.lag.ms >> > > > <http://max.compaction.ms >> > <http://max.compaction.ms>> >> > > > >> > > > 2) I am not sure if I get your second question. first, we have >> jitter >> > > when >> > > > we roll the active segment. second, on each compaction, we compact >> upto >> > > > the offsetmap could allow. Those will not lead to perfect compaction >> > > storm >> > > > overtime. In addition, I expect we are setting >> max.compaction.lag.ms >> > on >> > > > the order of days. >> > > > >> > > > 3) I don't have access to the confluent community slack for now. I >> am >> > > > reachable via the google handle out. >> > > > To avoid the double effort, here is my plan: >> > > > a) Collect more feedback and feature requriement on the KIP. >> > > > b) Wait unitl this KIP is approved. >> > > > c) I will address any additional requirements in the implementation. >> > (My >> > > > current implementation only complies to whatever described in the >> KIP >> > > now) >> > > > d) I can share the code with the you and community see you want to >> add >> > > > anything. >> > > > e) submission through committee >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:42 PM, XIAOHE DONG < >> dannyriv...@gmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi Xiongqi >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for thinking about implementing this as well. :) >> > > > > >> > > > > I was thinking about using `segment.ms` to trigger the segment >> roll. >> > > > > Also, its value can be the largest time bias for the record >> deletion. >> > > For >> > > > > example, if the `segment.ms` is 1 day and `max.compaction.ms` is >> 30 >> > > > days, >> > > > > the compaction may happen around 31 days. >> > > > > >> > > > > For my curiosity, is there a way we can do some performance test >> for >> > > this >> > > > > and any tools you can recommend. As you know, previously, it is >> > cleaned >> > > > up >> > > > > by respecting dirty ratio, but now it may happen anytime if max >> lag >> > has >> > > > > passed for each message. I wonder what would happen if clients >> send >> > > huge >> > > > > amount of tombstone records at the same time. >> > > > > >> > > > > I am looking forward to have a quick chat with you to avoid double >> > > effort >> > > > > on this. I am in confluent community slack during the work time. >> My >> > > name >> > > > is >> > > > > Xiaohe Dong. :) >> > > > > >> > > > > Rgds >> > > > > Xiaohe Dong >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On 2018/08/16 01:22:22, xiongqi wu <xiongq...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > Brett, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you for your comments. >> > > > > > I was thinking since we already has immediate compaction >> setting by >> > > > > setting >> > > > > > min dirty ratio to 0, so I decide to use "0" as disabled state. >> > > > > > I am ok to go with -1(disable), 0 (immediate) options. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > For the implementation, there are a few differences between mine >> > and >> > > > > > "Xiaohe Dong"'s : >> > > > > > 1) I used the estimated creation time of a log segment instead >> of >> > > > largest >> > > > > > timestamp of a log to determine the compaction eligibility, >> > because a >> > > > log >> > > > > > segment might stay as an active segment up to "max compaction >> lag". >> > > > (see >> > > > > > the KIP for detail). >> > > > > > 2) I measure how much bytes that we must clean to follow the >> "max >> > > > > > compaction lag" rule, and use that to determine the order of >> > > > compaction. >> > > > > > 3) force active segment to roll to follow the "max compaction >> lag" >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I can share my code so we can coordinate. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I haven't think about a new API to force a compaction. what is >> the >> > > use >> > > > > case >> > > > > > for this one? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Brett Rann >> > > <br...@zendesk.com.invalid >> > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > We've been looking into this too. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Mailing list: >> > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ >> > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/> >> > > ed7f6a6589f94e8c2a705553f364ef >> > > > > > > 599cb6915e4c3ba9b561e610e4@%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E >> > > > > > > jira wish: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7137 >> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7137> >> > > > > > > confluent slack discussion: >> > > > > > > https://confluentcommunity.slack.com/archives/C49R61XMM/ >> > <https://confluentcommunity.slack.com/archives/C49R61XMM/> >> > > > > p1530760121000039 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > A person on my team has started on code so you might want to >> > > > > coordinate: >> > > > > > > https://github.com/dongxiaohe/kafka/tree/dongxiaohe/log- >> > <https://github.com/dongxiaohe/kafka/tree/dongxiaohe/log-> >> > > > > > > cleaner-compaction-max-lifetime-2.0 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > He's been working with Jason Gustafson and James Chen around >> the >> > > > > changes. >> > > > > > > You can ping him on confluent slack as Xiaohe Dong. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > It's great to know others are thinking on it as well. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > You've added the requirement to force a segment roll which we >> > > hadn't >> > > > > gotten >> > > > > > > to yet, which is great. I was content with it not including >> the >> > > > active >> > > > > > > segment. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Adding topic level configuration "max.compaction.lag.ms", >> and >> > > > > > > corresponding broker configuration " >> > log.cleaner.max.compaction.la >> > > > g.ms >> > > > > ", >> > > > > > > which is set to 0 (disabled) by default. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Glancing at some other settings convention seems to me to be >> -1 >> > for >> > > > > > > disabled (or infinite, which is more meaningful here). 0 to me >> > > > implies >> > > > > > > instant, a little quicker than 1. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > We've been trying to think about a way to trigger compaction >> as >> > > well >> > > > > > > through an API call, which would need to be flagged somewhere >> (ZK >> > > > > admin/ >> > > > > > > space?) but we're struggling to think how that would be >> > coordinated >> > > > > across >> > > > > > > brokers and partitions. Have you given any thought to that? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 8:44 AM xiongqi wu < >> xiongq...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Eno, Dong, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I have updated the KIP. We decide not to address the issue >> that >> > > we >> > > > > might >> > > > > > > > have for both compaction and time retention enabled topics >> (see >> > > the >> > > > > > > > rejected alternative item 2). This KIP will only ensure log >> can >> > > be >> > > > > > > > compacted after a specified time-interval. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > As suggested by Dong, we will also enforce " >> > > max.compaction.lag.ms" >> > > > > is >> > > > > > > not >> > > > > > > > less than "min.compaction.lag.ms". >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-354 >> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-354> >> > > > > Time-based >> > > > > > > log >> > > > > > > > compaction policy >> > > > > > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-354 >> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-354> >> > > > > Time-based >> > > > > > > log compaction policy> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 5:01 PM, xiongqi wu < >> > xiongq...@gmail.com >> > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Per discussion with Dong, he made a very good point that >> if >> > > > > compaction >> > > > > > > > > and time based retention are both enabled on a topic, the >> > > > > compaction >> > > > > > > > might >> > > > > > > > > prevent records from being deleted on time. The reason is >> > when >> > > > > > > compacting >> > > > > > > > > multiple segments into one single segment, the newly >> created >> > > > > segment >> > > > > > > will >> > > > > > > > > have same lastmodified timestamp as latest original >> segment. >> > We >> > > > > lose >> > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > timestamp of all original segments except the last one. >> As a >> > > > > result, >> > > > > > > > > records might not be deleted as it should be through time >> > based >> > > > > > > > retention. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > With the current KIP proposal, if we want to ensure timely >> > > > > deletion, we >> > > > > > > > > have the following configurations: >> > > > > > > > > 1) enable time based log compaction only : deletion is >> done >> > > > though >> > > > > > > > > overriding the same key >> > > > > > > > > 2) enable time based log retention only: deletion is done >> > > though >> > > > > > > > > time-based retention >> > > > > > > > > 3) enable both log compaction and time based retention: >> > > Deletion >> > > > > is not >> > > > > > > > > guaranteed. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Not sure if we have use case 3 and also want deletion to >> > happen >> > > > on >> > > > > > > time. >> > > > > > > > > There are several options to address deletion issue when >> > enable >> > > > > both >> > > > > > > > > compaction and retention: >> > > > > > > > > A) During log compaction, looking into record timestamp to >> > > delete >> > > > > > > expired >> > > > > > > > > records. This can be done in compaction logic itself or >> use >> > > > > > > > > AdminClient.deleteRecords() . But this assumes we have >> record >> > > > > > > timestamp. >> > > > > > > > > B) retain the lastModifed time of original segments during >> > log >> > > > > > > > compaction. >> > > > > > > > > This requires extra meta data to record the information or >> > not >> > > > > grouping >> > > > > > > > > multiple segments into one during compaction. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > If we have use case 3 in general, I would prefer solution >> A >> > and >> > > > > rely on >> > > > > > > > > record timestamp. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Two questions: >> > > > > > > > > Do we have use case 3? Is it nice to have or must have? >> > > > > > > > > If we have use case 3 and want to go with solution A, >> should >> > we >> > > > > > > introduce >> > > > > > > > > a new configuration to enforce deletion by timestamp? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 1:52 PM, xiongqi wu < >> > > xiongq...@gmail.com >> > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Dong, >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> Thanks for the comment. >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> There are two retention policy: log compaction and time >> > based >> > > > > > > retention. >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> Log compaction: >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> we have use cases to keep infinite retention of a topic >> > (only >> > > > > > > > >> compaction). GDPR cares about deletion of PII (personal >> > > > > identifiable >> > > > > > > > >> information) data. >> > > > > > > > >> Since Kafka doesn't know what records contain PII, it >> relies >> > > on >> > > > > upper >> > > > > > > > >> layer to delete those records. >> > > > > > > > >> For those infinite retention uses uses, kafka needs to >> > > provide a >> > > > > way >> > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > >> enforce compaction on time. This is what we try to >> address >> > in >> > > > this >> > > > > > > KIP. >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> Time based retention, >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> There are also use cases that users of Kafka might want >> to >> > > > expire >> > > > > all >> > > > > > > > >> their data. >> > > > > > > > >> In those cases, they can use time based retention of >> their >> > > > topics. >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> Regarding your first question, if a user wants to delete >> a >> > key >> > > > in >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > >> log compaction topic, the user has to send a deletion >> using >> > > the >> > > > > same >> > > > > > > > key. >> > > > > > > > >> Kafka only makes sure the deletion will happen under a >> > certain >> > > > > time >> > > > > > > > >> periods (like 2 days/7 days). >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> Regarding your second question. In most cases, we might >> want >> > > to >> > > > > delete >> > > > > > > > >> all duplicated keys at the same time. >> > > > > > > > >> Compaction might be more efficient since we need to scan >> the >> > > log >> > > > > and >> > > > > > > > find >> > > > > > > > >> all duplicates. However, the expected use case is to set >> the >> > > > time >> > > > > > > based >> > > > > > > > >> compaction interval on the order of days, and be larger >> than >> > > > 'min >> > > > > > > > >> compaction lag". We don't want log compaction to happen >> > > > frequently >> > > > > > > since >> > > > > > > > >> it is expensive. The purpose is to help low production >> rate >> > > > topic >> > > > > to >> > > > > > > get >> > > > > > > > >> compacted on time. For the topic with "normal" incoming >> > > message >> > > > > > > message >> > > > > > > > >> rate, the "min dirty ratio" might have triggered the >> > > compaction >> > > > > before >> > > > > > > > this >> > > > > > > > >> time based compaction policy takes effect. >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> Eno, >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> For your question, like I mentioned we have long time >> > > retention >> > > > > use >> > > > > > > case >> > > > > > > > >> for log compacted topic, but we want to provide ability >> to >> > > > delete >> > > > > > > > certain >> > > > > > > > >> PII records on time. >> > > > > > > > >> Kafka itself doesn't know whether a record contains >> > sensitive >> > > > > > > > information >> > > > > > > > >> and relies on the user for deletion. >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 6:58 PM, Dong Lin < >> > > lindon...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> Hey Xiongqi, >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> Thanks for the KIP. I have two questions regarding the >> > > use-case >> > > > > for >> > > > > > > > >>> meeting >> > > > > > > > >>> GDPR requirement. >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> 1) If I recall correctly, one of the GDPR requirement is >> > that >> > > > we >> > > > > can >> > > > > > > > not >> > > > > > > > >>> keep messages longer than e.g. 30 days in storage (e.g. >> > > Kafka). >> > > > > Say >> > > > > > > > there >> > > > > > > > >>> exists a partition p0 which contains message1 with key1 >> and >> > > > > message2 >> > > > > > > > with >> > > > > > > > >>> key2. And then user keeps producing messages with >> key=key2 >> > to >> > > > > this >> > > > > > > > >>> partition. Since message1 with key1 is never overridden, >> > > sooner >> > > > > or >> > > > > > > > later >> > > > > > > > >>> we >> > > > > > > > >>> will want to delete message1 and keep the latest message >> > with >> > > > > > > key=key2. >> > > > > > > > >>> But >> > > > > > > > >>> currently it looks like log compact logic in Kafka will >> > > always >> > > > > put >> > > > > > > > these >> > > > > > > > >>> messages in the same segment. Will this be an issue? >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> 2) The current KIP intends to provide the capability to >> > > delete >> > > > a >> > > > > > > given >> > > > > > > > >>> message in log compacted topic. Does such use-case also >> > > require >> > > > > Kafka >> > > > > > > > to >> > > > > > > > >>> keep the messages produced before the given message? If >> > yes, >> > > > > then we >> > > > > > > > can >> > > > > > > > >>> probably just use AdminClient.deleteRecords() or >> time-based >> > > log >> > > > > > > > retention >> > > > > > > > >>> to meet the use-case requirement. If no, do you know >> what >> > is >> > > > the >> > > > > > > GDPR's >> > > > > > > > >>> requirement on time-to-deletion after user explicitly >> > > requests >> > > > > the >> > > > > > > > >>> deletion >> > > > > > > > >>> (e.g. 1 hour, 1 day, 7 day)? >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> Thanks, >> > > > > > > > >>> Dong >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:44 PM, xiongqi wu < >> > > > xiongq...@gmail.com >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> > Hi Eno, >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > The GDPR request we are getting here at linkedin is >> if we >> > > > get a >> > > > > > > > >>> request to >> > > > > > > > >>> > delete a record through a null key on a log compacted >> > > topic, >> > > > > > > > >>> > we want to delete the record via compaction in a given >> > time >> > > > > period >> > > > > > > > >>> like 2 >> > > > > > > > >>> > days (whatever is required by the policy). >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > There might be other issues (such as orphan log >> segments >> > > > under >> > > > > > > > certain >> > > > > > > > >>> > conditions) that lead to GDPR problem but they are >> more >> > > like >> > > > > > > > >>> something we >> > > > > > > > >>> > need to fix anyway regardless of GDPR. >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > -- Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Eno Thereska < >> > > > > > > > eno.there...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > >>> > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > Hello, >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > Thanks for the KIP. I'd like to see a more precise >> > > > > definition of >> > > > > > > > what >> > > > > > > > >>> > part >> > > > > > > > >>> > > of GDPR you are targeting as well as some sort of >> > > > > verification >> > > > > > > that >> > > > > > > > >>> this >> > > > > > > > >>> > > KIP actually addresses the problem. Right now I find >> > > this a >> > > > > bit >> > > > > > > > >>> vague: >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > "Ability to delete a log message through compaction >> in >> > a >> > > > > timely >> > > > > > > > >>> manner >> > > > > > > > >>> > has >> > > > > > > > >>> > > become an important requirement in some use cases >> > (e.g., >> > > > > GDPR)" >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > Is there any guarantee that after this KIP the GDPR >> > > problem >> > > > > is >> > > > > > > > >>> solved or >> > > > > > > > >>> > do >> > > > > > > > >>> > > we need to do something else as well, e.g., more >> KIPs? >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > Thanks >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > Eno >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:18 PM, xiongqi wu < >> > > > > xiongq...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > >>> wrote: >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Kafka, >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > This KIP tries to address GDPR concern to fulfill >> > > > deletion >> > > > > > > > request >> > > > > > > > >>> on >> > > > > > > > >>> > > time >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > through time-based log compaction on a compaction >> > > enabled >> > > > > > > topic: >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- >> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-> >> > > > > > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- >> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP->> >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > 354%3A+Time-based+log+compaction+policy >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > Any feedback will be appreciated. >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu >> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> -- >> > > > > > > > >> Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Brett Rann >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Senior DevOps Engineer >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Zendesk International Ltd >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 395 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Mobile: +61 (0) 418 826 017 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu >> > >> >> >> -- >> >> Brett Rann >> >> Senior DevOps Engineer >> >> >> Zendesk International Ltd >> >> 395 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia >> >> Mobile: +61 (0) 418 826 017 >> > -- Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu
