[jira] [Created] (KAFKA-13564) Kafka keep print NOT_LEADER_OR_FOLLOWER in log file after one broker dropped, and the producer can not work.

ZhenChun Pan created KAFKA-13564: Summary: Kafka keep print NOT_LEADER_OR_FOLLOWER in log file after one broker dropped, and the producer can not work. Key: KAFKA-13564 URL:

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-719: Add Log4J2 Appender

Hi Haruki, Thanks for organizing the issue. If the community prefers logback, I will gladly change the dependency and update the PR. However, it has the following issues: 1. The log4j2 vulnerabilities seem mostly fixed, and KIP-653 + KIP-719 are not released yet. So, using log4j2 (whose

Build failed in Jenkins: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » 3.1 #48

See Changes: -- [...truncated 500453 lines...] [2021-12-23T01:16:44.765Z] ControllerIntegrationTest > testPreemptionWithCallbacks() STARTED [2021-12-23T01:16:50.585Z]

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-719: Add Log4J2 Appender

Hi, Dongjin, Sorry for interrupting the discussion. And thank you for your hard work about KIP-653, KIP-719. I understand that KIP-653 is already accepted so log4j2 is the choice of the Kafka community though, I'm now feeling that logback is a better choice here. Reasons: - even after

Jenkins build is still unstable: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » 2.8 #94

See

Build failed in Jenkins: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » 3.1 #47

See Changes: -- [...truncated 498371 lines...] [2021-12-22T21:55:40.592Z] [2021-12-22T21:55:40.592Z] ControllerIntegrationTest >

Build failed in Jenkins: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » 3.0 #163

See Changes: -- [...truncated 416209 lines...] [2021-12-22T21:37:34.006Z] [INFO] --- maven-clean-plugin:3.0.0:clean (default-clean) @ streams-quickstart ---

Build failed in Jenkins: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » 3.1 #46

See Changes: -- [...truncated 501643 lines...] [Pipeline] // withEnv [Pipeline] } [Pipeline] // withEnv [Pipeline] } [Pipeline] // node [Pipeline] } [Pipeline] // timestamps

Build failed in Jenkins: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » 3.1 #45

See Changes: -- [...truncated 499680 lines...] [2021-12-22T14:51:11.900Z] TransactionsBounceTest > testWithGroupId() PASSED [2021-12-22T14:51:11.900Z]

[jira] [Created] (KAFKA-13563) Consumer failure after rolling Broker upgrade

Luke Chen created KAFKA-13563: - Summary: Consumer failure after rolling Broker upgrade Key: KAFKA-13563 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13563 Project: Kafka Issue Type: Bug

Precision of kafka quotas

Hi, We are trying to setup a utilization plot for our multi-tenant kafka cluster. Setup is Kafka: 2.6, Scala 2.12, Ubuntu 18 We noticed 2 issues: 1. Throttling happens even when quota violation doesn't occur As per JMX metrics: Producer byte-rate is 148KB/s, Consumer

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-591: Add Kafka Streams config to set default state store

Hi Guozhang, Thanks for the comments. And I agree it's better to rename it to `default.dsl.store.impl.type` for differentiation. I've updated the KIP. Thank you. Luke On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 3:12 AM Guozhang Wang wrote: > Thanks Luke, I do not have any major comments on the wiki any more.

Build failed in Jenkins: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » 3.1 #44

See Changes: -- [...truncated 501602 lines...] [2021-12-22T12:46:08.411Z] > Task :raft:testClasses UP-TO-DATE [2021-12-22T12:46:08.411Z] > Task :connect:json:testJar

Jenkins build is unstable: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #593

See

Jenkins build is still unstable: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » 3.1 #43

See

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-802: Validation Support for Kafka Connect SMT Options

Hi Gunnar, Thanks for the KIP, especially the careful reasoning about compatibility. I think this would be a useful improvement. I have a few observations, which are all about how we effectively communicate the contract to implementers: 1. I think it would be good for the Javadoc to give a bit

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-811 Add separate delete.interval.ms to Kafka Streams

Hi Nick, Thanks for the updates! The motivation section and the description of the new config is much clearer and informative now! You missed one "delete.interval.ms" in the last paragraph in section "Proposed Changes". I am afraid, I again need to comment on point 7. IMO, it does not