RE: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

During the vote it was suggested the name of the property be changed from: log.cleaner.compaction.lag.ms to log.cleaner.compaction.delay.ms Note that this feature concerns controlling the portion of the head of the log (new messages go on the head) that will be left un-compacted (i.e.

RE: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

Thanks everyone for voting. The vote passed with 5 binding +1's (Gwen, Jay, Ewen, Ismael, Jun) and with 9 nb's (Becket, James, Tom, Mnikumar, Ben, Grant, Joel, Eric) The discussion should move to KAFKA-1981

Re: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

Hey, its been over 3 days since the vote started and we clearly have over 3 +1s. Eric, Feel free to close the vote and we can move to code reviews :) Gwen On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Jun Rao wrote: > Thanks for the proposal. +1 > > Jun > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:37

Re: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

Thanks for the proposal. +1 Jun On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Eric Wasserman wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to begin voting on KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point > Configurable > > KIP-58 is here: < > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

Sounds good. On 25 May 2016 17:26, "Gwen Shapira" wrote: > All topic level names are inconsistent. We can have a separate discussion / > KIP on getting out of that mess. > > Gwen > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

+1 on the proposal Re: inconsistent names: KAFKA-3234 has a patch and discussion in the PR that should help address the inconsistencies and various other issues but we decided it would need a small KIP. (If someone else wishes to take over that

Re: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

All topic level names are inconsistent. We can have a separate discussion / KIP on getting out of that mess. Gwen On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > +1 (binding) > > I also think `log.cleaner.compaction.delay.ms` is clearer. As an aside, I > did notice

Re: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

+1 (non-binding) On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Ben Stopford wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > > On 25 May 2016, at 14:07, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > I also think `log.cleaner.compaction.delay.ms` is clearer. As an aside, > I > > did

Re: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

+1 (non-binding) > On 25 May 2016, at 14:07, Ismael Juma wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > I also think `log.cleaner.compaction.delay.ms` is clearer. As an aside, I > did notice that the topic level config for `log.segment.delete.delay.ms` > (mentioned by Ewen) is

Re: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

+1 (binding) I also think `log.cleaner.compaction.delay.ms` is clearer. As an aside, I did notice that the topic level config for `log.segment.delete.delay.ms` (mentioned by Ewen) is `file.delete.delay.ms`, which seems a bit inconsistent. Ismael On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Ewen

Re: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

+1 (non binding) On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Tom Crayford wrote: > +1 (non binding) > > Agree on log.cleaner.compaction.delay.ms being the better name. > > I think this setting is going to be extremely hard to tune for users, and > worry about adding yet more

Re: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

+1 (binding) Agreed that the log.cleaner.compaction.delay.ms is probably a better name, and consistent with log.segment.delete.delay.ms. Checked configs for other suffixes that seemed reasonable and despite only appearing in that one broker config, it seems the best match. -Ewen On Tue, May 24,

Re: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

I'm +1 on the concept. As with others I think the core challenge is to express this in an intuitive way, and carry the same terminology across the docs, the configs, and docstrings for the configs. Pictures would help. -Jay On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:54 PM, James Cheng

Re: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

I'm not sure what are the rules for who is allowed to vote, but I'm: +1 (non-binding) on the proposal I agree that the "log.cleaner.min.compaction.lag.ms" name is a little confusing. I like Becket's "log.cleaner.compaction.delay.ms", or something similar. The KIP describes it as the portion of

Re: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

+1 (non-binding) on the proposal. Just a minor suggestion. I am wondering should we change the config name to " log.cleaner.compaction.delay.ms"? The first glance at the configuration name is a little confusing. I was thinking do we have a "max" lag? And is this "lag" a bad thing? Thanks,

Re: [VOTE] KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point Configurable

+1 (binding) Thanks for responding to all my original concerns in the discussion thread. On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Eric Wasserman wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to begin voting on KIP-58 - Make Log Compaction Point > Configurable > > KIP-58 is here: < > >