Jason Rosenberg 2013-05-02, 03:44
Neha Narkhede 2013-05-02, 04:54
Yeah, well we have many producers and only a few consumers. I don't expect
the producers of a given topic to unifornly migrate at the same time, so
we'll have duplicate consumer versions. I'll know the migration is
complete when the old consumer version stops receiving any new messages...
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Neha Narkhede <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> During the migration, the only thing to watch out for is that the producers
> of a particular topic don't upgrade to 0.8 before the consumers do so. You
> can let applications upgrade when they can to respect the above
> requirement. If there are fewer applications producing to and consuming
> from any particular topic, you can group together those and push them at
> roughly the same time.
> On May 1, 2013 8:44 PM, "Jason Rosenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, we have lots of apps producing messages to our kafka 0.7.2 instances
> > (and multiple consumers of the data).
> > We are not going to be able to follow the suggested migration path, where
> > we first migrate all data, then move all producers to use 0.8, etc.
> > Instead, many apps are on their own release cycle, and we need to allow
> > them to upgrade their kafka libraries as part of their regular release
> > schedule.
> > Is there a procedure I'm not seeing, or am I right in thinking I'll need
> > maintain duplicate kafka clusters (and consumers) for a time. Or can we
> > have a real-time data migration consumer always running continuously
> > against the 0.7.2 kafka store, and have all the data ultimately end up in
> > 0.8. Eventually, the data going to 0.7.2 will dwindle to nothing, but it
> > could take a while.
> > So, I'm thinking I'll just need to maintain dual sets of kafka servers
> > a while. Since this won't result in any increase in load/disk space,
> > I was thinking of allowing instances to remain multi-tennant with each
> > other (e.g. kafka 0.7.2 and kafka 0.8 on the same box, using separate
> > ports, separate log storage directories (but shared disks)). Is this ok,
> > or a terrible idea? I expect the transition to take several weeks.
> > Thanks,
> > Jason