Hey Justine, Yes, sorry I will update the wording. The original (untagged) metric will remain the same to ensure any monitoring/alerting will be untouched by this change.
With my implementation (that I have not yet pushed upstream from our fork) I am not very concerned about performance impacts. Everything is lazily created with respect to a topic, and topics with no offline partitions are not included within any of the logic. In the event where there are many topics with offline partitions, there could be some impact as on each Controller Event those topics would need to be iterated through to update the metric state. Best, Mason On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:24 AM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > Hi Mason, > > Thanks for the KIP. I had a few questions. > Are you saying that we will be keeping the original (untagged) offline > partitions count metric? I was a little confused by the wording in the KIP> > > I'm also curious about potential performance impacts. Have you looked into > this? > > Thanks, > Justine > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:00 AM Mason Legere > <mason.leg...@salesforce.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > Planning to open a vote for this small change tomorrow - haven't heard > > anything yet but open to any feedback. > > > > Best, > > Mason > > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 1:54 PM Mason Legere < > mason.leg...@salesforce.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion for KIP-804 > > > < > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-804*3A*OfflinePartitionsCount*Tagged*by*Topic__;JSsrKys!!DCbAVzZNrAf4!UY1lyp3NZX3eBtuJEbTlNkDh0i6axV0Qs9WxVUS0sxxGbaOOCVwcgnjg-jG7OVTFfEV7$ > >, > > which > > > proposes tagging the offline partition counter metric (managed by the > > > controller) by the topic name of the corresponding offline > partition(s). > > > > > > Open to any thoughts and suggestions, > > > Mason > > > > > >
