Stan, I think that makes sense. I'll update the KIP and start the vote
shortly.

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 12:54 PM Stanislav Kozlovski <stanis...@confluent.io>
wrote:

> What do people think if we exposed:
> * eligible topics/replicas pending delete
> * ineligible topics/replicas pending delete
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:16 PM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It looks like topicsIneligibleForDeletion is a subset of
> topicsToBeDeleted
> > in the controller.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:16 AM Stanislav Kozlovski <
> > stanis...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > ineligible replicas/topics are not included in the pending metrics,
> > right?
> > > If so, sounds good to me.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:12 PM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes I think exposing ineligible topics would be useful as well. The
> > > > controller also tracks this ineligible state for replicas. Would that
> > be
> > > > useful to expose as well?
> > > >
> > > > In that case, we'd be up to four new metrics:
> > > > * topics pending delete
> > > > * replicas pending delete
> > > > * ineligible topics
> > > > * ineligible replicas
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 5:16 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the KIP. This is useful. The controller also maintains a
> > set
> > > > for
> > > > > topics which are awaiting deletion, but currently ineligible. A
> topic
> > > > which
> > > > > is undergoing reassignment, for example, is ineligible for
> deletion.
> > > > Would
> > > > > it make sense to have a metric for this as well?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Jason
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Updated the KIP with a count of replicas awaiting deletion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback, Stan. That's a good point about the
> > > > partition
> > > > > > > count -- I'll poke around and see if I can surface this value
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > Controller.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:13 AM Stanislav Kozlovski <
> > > > > > stanis...@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Thanks for the KIP David,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> As you mentioned in the KIP - "when a large number of topics
> > > > > > (partitions,
> > > > > > >> really) are deleted at once, it can take significant time for
> > the
> > > > > > >> Controller to process everything.
> > > > > > >> In that sense, does it make sense to have the metric expose
> the
> > > > number
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> partitions that are pending deletion, as opposed to topics?
> > > Perhaps
> > > > > even
> > > > > > >> both?
> > > > > > >> My reasoning is that this metric alone wouldn't say much if we
> > had
> > > > one
> > > > > > >> topic with 1000 partitions versus a topic with 1 partition
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:19 PM Harsha Chintalapani <
> > > ka...@harsha.io
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Thanks for the KIP.  Its useful metric to have.  LGTM.
> > > > > > >> > -Harsha
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:24 AM, David Arthur <
> > > > > > davidart...@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > Hello all, I'd like to start a discussion for
> > > > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > > > > >> > >
> > KIP-503%3A+Add+metric+for+number+of+topics+marked+for+deletion
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >> > > David
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > >> Stanislav
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > David Arthur
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > David Arthur
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Arthur
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best,
> > > Stanislav
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Arthur
> >
>
>
> --
> Best,
> Stanislav
>


-- 
David Arthur

Reply via email to