Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Kafka >> mail # user >> status of 0.8?


+
Jason Rosenberg 2013-02-21, 17:44
+
Neha Narkhede 2013-02-21, 20:31
+
Jason Rosenberg 2013-02-21, 20:52
+
Neha Narkhede 2013-02-21, 20:54
+
David Arthur 2013-02-21, 21:33
+
graham sanderson 2013-02-21, 21:42
+
Neha Narkhede 2013-02-22, 05:06
+
graham sanderson 2013-02-22, 05:14
+
Jun Rao 2013-02-22, 05:26
+
graham sanderson 2013-02-22, 05:37
+
Matan Safriel 2013-02-22, 10:13
Copy link to this message
-
Re: status of 0.8?
0.8 branch will be the 0.8 release grabbing HEAD would be 0.8.X or 0.9
changes that don't go in the 0.8 release

you should be able to set replication factor = 0

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Matan Safriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> As per 0.8, just a quick question about grabbing HEAD. What's the
> difference between the 0.8 branch and the trunk? Also should I take it from
> Neha's reply that replication is a must in using 0.8 even if you don't wish
> to use it? is there any design limitation (or operations aspect) that
> should make me want to use replication, even if data loss in case of a
> totally lost server - is not a major concern?
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:37 AM, graham sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > thanks Jun
> >
> > On Feb 21, 2013, at 11:26 PM, Jun Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The remaining 0.8 blockers are tracked in
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+replication+development
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jun
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:14 PM, graham sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks, so if I understand what you are saying is that 0.8 is
> alpha-ish;
> > >> i.e. everything pretty much implemented (is there anything major
> > missing -
> > >> hard to tell looking at JIRA without much context) - we use at our own
> > risk
> > >> (which we're fine with), but that given we really want 0.8 features we
> > can
> > >> and should start testing with it today, with an expectation of a
> > release in
> > >> the next N months where N is hopefully no more than 2
> > >>
> > >> On Feb 21, 2013, at 11:06 PM, Neha Narkhede <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> 0.8 is a significant rewrite since the 0.7 codebase. Hence, there is
> no
> > >>> easy way to "turn off" replication and expect 0.7.2 like
> functionality.
> > >>> Having said that, it is somewhat stable so you can use it for
> > >> prototyping.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Neha
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, graham sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> So I am excited that 0.8 is getting close.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I understand that 0.8 is pre-beta, but to what extent would you say
> > the
> > >>>> bugs are mostly with the new redundancy code vs regressions in
> > existing
> > >>>> functionality;  i.e. if wanting to prototype and deploy something
> over
> > >> the
> > >>>> next month or so with the view to deploying it within the next two
> > >> months,
> > >>>> is it safe-ish to go with 0.8 with replicated brokers turned off
> (for
> > >> now)
> > >>>> vs going with 0.7.2?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Also does anyone know the status of any node.js clients for 0.8
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 3:32 PM, David Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I've been having trouble building trunk since the changes to sbt in
> > >> 0.8.
> > >>>> Is there some documentation on building and running trunk?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 2/21/13 3:53 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> > >>>>>> HEAD is good as of today and has been stable for past few days.
> > There
> > >>>> are
> > >>>>>> some bugs we are working on but you can certainly run the cluster
> > and
> > >> do
> > >>>>>> some basic send/receive operations. Also, let us know if you have
> > >>>> feedback
> > >>>>>> on the APIs, protocols, tools etc since that takes some time to
> > >> refactor
> > >>>>>> and change.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Good luck! :-)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>> Neha
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jason Rosenberg <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thanks Neha,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> That's helpful info.  Is there a reasonable checkpoint rev to
> check
> > >>>> out now
> > >>>>>>> and experiment with, or is HEAD as good as anything else?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Jason
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Neha Narkhede <
> > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/*
Joe Stein
http://www.linkedin.com/in/charmalloc
Twitter: @allthingshadoop <http://www.twitter.com/allthingshadoop>
*/