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

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


Copy link to this message
-
Re: status of 0.8?
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]
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Jason,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We are closely monitoring the health of one of our production
> clusters
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>> has the 0.8 code deployed. This cluster is feeding off of LinkedIn's
> >>>>>> production traffic. Once this cluster is fairly stable, we'd like to
> >> run
> >>>>>> all of our tools and ensure those are working. Another thing we are
> >>>>> trying
> >>>>>> is to introduce failures on this cluster when it is under load and
> >> ensure
> >>>>>> that there is no data loss.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So far, we've been working on stabilizing this cluster and fixing
> >> bugs.
> >>>>>> Next week, we will be working on tools and setting up audit so we
> can
> >> do
> >>>>>> some data loss analysis, if any. This will probably take another
> >> month.
> >>>>>> After that, I think we should be ready to release a public BETA and
> >> have
> >>>>>> our users try it. If we release it sooner than that, I'm not sure it
> >> will
> >>>>>> be helpful since tools and simple failure cases might not work as
> >>>>> expected.
> >>>>>> As far as formal release goes, I believe end of March or April will
> >> be a
> >>>>>> good timeframe. We will try our best to update documentation for the
> >> BETA
> >>>>>> release, 3-4 weeks from now.