Well, it does not look like I can reproduce it anymore. While I was able to
consistently crash it
yesterday, today kafka broker runs without any problems.
--
Dmitri Priimak
On 11/29/2012 02:10 PM, Dmitri Priimak wrote:
> On 11/29/2012 02:06 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>> That just meant that we cou
On 11/29/2012 02:06 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> That just meant that we couldn't reproduce it during our testing, but
> we occasionally do see it in production, which is much harder to
> reproduce.
> It will be great if you can reproduce the issue and attach the test case.
I see. I will try to isola
That just meant that we couldn't reproduce it during our testing, but
we occasionally do see it in production, which is much harder to
reproduce.
It will be great if you can reproduce the issue and attach the test case.
Thanks,
Neha
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Dmitri Priimak
wrote:
> On 11/
On 11/29/2012 01:50 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Dmitri,
>
> You said that the problem goes away once you upgrade to 0.7.1. Do you
> mean that the message corruption doesn't happen or that when it
> happens, the broker doesn't shut down ?
I do not see corrupt message at all.
> I'm asking since we o
Dmitri,
You said that the problem goes away once you upgrade to 0.7.1. Do you
mean that the message corruption doesn't happen or that when it
happens, the broker doesn't shut down ?
I'm asking since we occasionally do see the corruption on 0.7.1 but
don't have a good way to reproduce that. 0.7.1 f
On 12-11-28 09:54 PM, Jun Rao wrote:
Dmitri,
Could you reproduce this easily? Are you using a load balancer? Earlier,
another user had the same issue and eventually figured out that the problem
is in the network router.
I do not believe I have any loadbalancer anywhere in the picture and by
the
Dmitri,
Could you reproduce this easily? Are you using a load balancer? Earlier,
another user had the same issue and eventually figured out that the problem
is in the network router.
Thanks,
Jun
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Dmitri Priimak <
prii...@highwire.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Hi.
>
>