To stimulate insightful thinking and discussion, I'd like to present an opinion. I believe that tiered storage cannot save Kafka.
1. First, tiered storage does not fundamentally solve the issue of Kafka's cross-Availability Zone (AZ) traffic costs. This part of the traffic cost can cause a significant expenditure in the cloud. For reference, you can check out this link: https://www.confluent.io/blog/understanding-and-optimizing-y...
2. Essentially, tiered storage only alleviates the disadvantage of Kafka's partition data movement, but it does not eradicate it. Kafka requires the last logsegment of a partition to be on local storage. If this segment is large, a substantial amount of partition data still needs to be replicated during scaling.
Delve into the intricacies of various streaming platforms with our comprehensive comparison table. This table underscores how diverse technical architecture choices shape unique outcomes, carving distinct paths in the streaming landscape. We're eager to hear your insights and perspectives. What does this comparative analysis inspire in you? Let's spark some enlightening discussions!
1. First, tiered storage does not fundamentally solve the issue of Kafka's cross-Availability Zone (AZ) traffic costs. This part of the traffic cost can cause a significant expenditure in the cloud. For reference, you can check out this link: https://www.confluent.io/blog/understanding-and-optimizing-y...
2. Essentially, tiered storage only alleviates the disadvantage of Kafka's partition data movement, but it does not eradicate it. Kafka requires the last logsegment of a partition to be on local storage. If this segment is large, a substantial amount of partition data still needs to be replicated during scaling.