[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-16414?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17847628#comment-17847628
]
Luke Chen commented on KAFKA-16414:
-----------------------------------
So, I think we have the consensus that if we can include active segment for
retention.bytes as well as making tiered storage integration tests non-flaky,
then it is good to make this change. But from [~ckamal] 's opinion, it's not
easy to achieve that. Maybe we can give it a quick try and see if the time
investment is worth or not. That is, the current behavior has been there for a
long time, I think even if we don't change it, users seem to accept it. So if
you need much time to make the tiered storage integration test reliable, it
might not worth doing it. WDYT [~brandboat] ? Tha
> Inconsistent active segment expiration behavior between retention.ms and
> retention.bytes
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-16414
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-16414
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 3.6.1
> Reporter: Kuan Po Tseng
> Assignee: Kuan Po Tseng
> Priority: Major
>
> This is a follow up issue on KAFKA-16385.
> Currently, there's a difference between how retention.ms and retention.bytes
> handle active segment expiration:
> - retention.ms always expire active segment when max segment timestamp
> matches the condition.
> - retention.bytes only expire active segment when retention.bytes is
> configured to zero.
> The behavior should be either rotate active segments for both retention
> configurations or none at all.
> For more details, see
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-16385?focusedCommentId=17829682&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-17829682
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
