One thing that comes to my mind after reading your explanation, zk quorum
should be odd number, you stated you have six zookeepers... I would suggest
checking this matter, 3 , 5 , 7 etc...

בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באוק׳ 2021, 22:00, מאת Rijo Roy
‏<rjo_...@yahoo.com.invalid>:

> Hi,
>
> Hope you are safe and well!
>
> Let me give a brief about my environment:
>
> OS: Ubuntu 18.04
> Kafka Version: Confluent Kafka v5.5.1
> ZooKeeper Version : 3.5.8
> No.of Kafka Brokers: 3
> No. of Zookeeper nodes: 3
>
> I am working on a project where we are aiming to move out from our
> existing infrastructure lets call it A where Kafka and ZooKeeper clusters
> are hosted to a better infrastructure lets call it B but with no or minimal
> downtime. Once the cutover is done, we would like to terminate the old
> infrastructure A.
>
> I was able to use kafka-reassign-partitions.sh as per the steps mentioned
> in https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/#basic_ops_cluster_expansion to
> move the topics-partitions to the Kafka brokers I created in B. Please note
> that I have added 3 zookeeper nodes running in B into the zookeeper cluster
> in A and hence they were following the ZK leader in A.
> I was in the impression that since I had 6 nodes in the ZooKeeper
> ensemble, stopping the A side of ZooKeeper nodes would not cause an issue
> but I was wrong. As soon as I stopped the ZK process on the A nodes, B Zk
> nodes failed to accept any connections from Kafka and I assume it is
> because the leadership of ZK did not transfer to the ZK B nodes and failed
> the quorum resulting in this failure. I had to remove the version-2 folder
> inside the B Zk nodes and starting them 1 by 1 after removing the details
> of ZK A nodes from zookeeper.properties helped me to resolve the failure
> and run the cluster on infrastructure B. I know I failed miserably but this
> was a sandbox where I could afford the downtime but cannot in a production
> setup. I request your help and guidance to make it right. Please help!
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Regards,Rijo S Roy
>
>
>

Reply via email to