The current proposal says that replication throughput would change not to include reassignment though.
Ismael On Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 11:53 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Ismael, > > I think every replica is doing replication, by definition. But not every > replica is undergoing reassignment. > > If the broker that died was in the set of new replicas being added, its > death will not add a new under-replicated partition. Otherwise, it will > add a new URP. > > best, > Colin > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019, at 11:26, Ismael Juma wrote: > > If a broker dies and loses the disk, is it replication or reassignment? > > > > Ismael > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 3:30 AM Viktor Somogyi-Vass < > viktorsomo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > During the code review it came up that we shouldn't count replication > bytes > > > together with reassignment bytes so they count to a different metrics. > This > > > is a change in the semantics of ReplicationBytesInPerSec and > > > ReplicationBytesOutPerSec metrics but since we plan to separate > > > reassignment from replication in terms of throttling, it makes sense to > > > record metrics separately as well. > > > If there are no objections we'll proceed with this interpretation but I > > > wanted to send a shoutout here as well. > > > > > > Also the ReassignmentMaxLag will go in a different JIRA as it requires > more > > > discussion. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Viktor > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:30 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Closing this vote. The final result is +9 with 4 binding votes. > > > > > > > > @Satish Sorry, I missed your question above. Good point about > updating > > > > documentation. I will create a separate jira to make sure this gets > done. > > > > > > > > -Jason > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:23 AM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks Stan, good catch. I have updated the KIP. I will plan to > close > > > the > > > > > vote Monday if there are no objections. > > > > > > > > > > -Jason > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:14 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019, at 11:08, Stanislav Kozlovski wrote: > > > > >> > Thanks for the KIP, this is very helpful > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I had an offline discussion with Jason and we discussed the > > > semantics > > > > of > > > > >> > the underMinIsr/atMinIsr metrics. The current proposal would > expose > > > a > > > > >> gap > > > > >> > where we could report URP but no MinIsr. > > > > >> > A brief example: > > > > >> > original replica set = [0,1,2] > > > > >> > new replica set = [3,4,5] > > > > >> > isr = [0, 3, 4] > > > > >> > config.minIsr = 3 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > As the KIP said > > > > >> > > In other words, we will subtract the AddingReplica from both > the > > > > total > > > > >> > replicas and the current ISR when determining URP satisfaction. > > > > >> > We would report URP=2 (1 and 2 are not in ISR) but not > underMinIsr, > > > as > > > > >> we > > > > >> > have an ISR of 3. > > > > >> > Technically, any produce requests with acks=all would succeed, > so it > > > > >> would > > > > >> > be false to report `underMinIsr`. We thought it'd be good to > keep > > > both > > > > >> > metrics consistent, so a new proposal is to use the following > > > > algorithm: > > > > >> > ``` > > > > >> > isUrp == size(original replicas) - size(isr) > 0 > > > > >> > ``` > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi Stan, > > > > >> > > > > >> That's a good point. Basically we should regard the size of the > > > > original > > > > >> replica set as the desired replication factor, and calculate the > URPs > > > > based > > > > >> on that. +1 for this. (I assume Jason will update the KIP...) > > > > >> > > > > >> best, > > > > >> Colin > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Taking that into account, +1 from me! (non-binding) > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 7:00 PM Colin McCabe < > cmcc...@apache.org> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > +1 (binding). > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > cheers, > > > > >> > > Colin > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, at 10:55, Jason Gustafson wrote: > > > > >> > > > Hi All, > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I'd like to start a vote on KIP-352, which is a follow-up to > > > > >> KIP-455 to > > > > >> > > > fix > > > > >> > > > a long-known shortcoming of URP reporting and to improve > > > > >> reassignment > > > > >> > > > monitoring: > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-352%3A+Distinguish+URPs+caused+by+reassignment > > > > >> > > > . > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Note that I have added one new metric following the > discussion. > > > It > > > > >> seemed > > > > >> > > > useful to have a lag metric for reassigning partitions. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > > > >> > > > Jason > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -- > > > > >> > Best, > > > > >> > Stanislav > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
