At some point I will - right now we are unfortunately stuck with 0.6. The biggest problem being that the message format changed for the binary protocol, and I would have to upgrade my clients just to try it out.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:17 AM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote: > Could you try the 0.7 RC? > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Taylor Gautier <tgaut...@tagged.com> > wrote: > > > Oh - well if that's what is supposed to happen - it's not. I don't > > think it's not happening because of a race condition. It seems to be > > intentional that it is just removing the segment file and not creating > > anything because it is a fairly consistent behavior. > > > > Note that I'm using 0.6. > > > > On Nov 18, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Joel Koshy <jjko...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Just want to see if I understand this right - when the log cleaner > > > does its thing, even if all the segments are eligible for garbage > > > collection the cleaner will nuke those files and should deposit an > > > empty segment file named with the next valid offset in that partition. > > > I think Taylor encountered a case where that empty segment was not > > > added. Is this the race condition that you speak of? If for e.g., the > > > broker crashes before that empty segment file is created... > > > > > > Also, I have seen the log cleaner act up more than once in the past - > > > basically seems to get scheduled continuously and delete file 0000... > > > I think someone else on the list saw that before. I have been unable > > > to reproduce that though - and it is not impossible that there was a > > > misconfiguration at play. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Joel > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Taylor Gautier <tgaut...@tagged.com> > > wrote: > > >> Ok that's what we are already doing. In essence when that happens it > > >> is a bit like a rollover. Except depending on the values it might be > > >> the case that a consumer has a low enough value that web it requests > > >> the topic the value is still within range but is not valid since > > >> messages were delivered to the broker. Essentially it's a race > > >> condition that might be somewhat hard to induce but is theoretically > > >> possible. During a rollover of 64-bits this is more or less never > > >> going to happen because 64-bits is just too large to open a time > > >> window long enough for the race to occur. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Nov 18, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Taylor, > > >>> > > >>> If you request an offset whose corresponding log file has been > > deleted, you > > >>> will get OutOfRange exception. When this happens, you can use the > > >>> getLatestOffset api in SimpleConsumer to obtain either the current > > valid > > >>> smallest or largest offset and reconsume from there. Our high level > > >>> consumer does that for you (among many other things). That's why we > > >>> encourage most users to use the high level api instead. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> > > >>> Jun > > >> > > >
