[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-16384?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Peter updated KAFKA-16384:
--------------------------
Affects Version/s: 3.7.0
> KRaft controller number recommendation
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-16384
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-16384
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: controller, kraft
> Affects Versions: 3.7.0
> Reporter: Peter
> Priority: Minor
>
> There seems to be some conflicting information about how many controllers
> should be used for a KRaft cluster. The first section listed mentions 3 or 5
> controllers may be used, but the second section mentions no more than 3
> should be used at the moment.
> https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/#kraft_voter
> > A Kafka admin will typically select 3 or 5 servers for this role, depending
> > on factors like cost and the number of concurrent failures your system
> > should withstand without availability impact. A majority of the controllers
> > must be alive in order to maintain availability. With 3 controllers, the
> > cluster can tolerate 1 controller failure; with 5 controllers, the cluster
> > can tolerate 2 controller failures.
> https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/#kraft_deployment
> > For redundancy, a Kafka cluster should use 3 controllers. More than 3
> > controllers is not recommended in critical environments. In the rare case
> > of a partial network failure it is possible for the cluster metadata quorum
> > to become unavailable. This limitation will be addressed in a future
> > release of Kafka.
>
> Is 3 still the recommended number and is there more information on what the
> network issues are that could cause issues when using 5 controllers?
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
