Hi Brendan, Thanks for the KIP. The metrics are always helpful. AM1: Is `application-event-queue-age-avg` enough or do we require ` application-event-queue-age-max` as well to differentiate with outliers?
AM2: The kafka producer defines metric `record-queue-time-avg` which captures the time spent in the buffer. Do you think we should have a similar name for `application-event-queue-age-avg` i.e. change to ` application-event-queue-time-avg`? Moreover other than similar naming, `time` anyways seems more suitable than `age`, though minor. The `time` usage is also aligned with the description of this metric. AM3: Metric `application-event-processing-time` says "the average time, that the consumer network.....". Shall we have the `-avg` suffix in the metric as we have defined for other metrics? Also do we require the max metric as well for the same? AM4: Is the telemetry name for `unsent-requests-queue-size` intended as `org.apache.kafka.consumer.unsent.requests.size`, or it should be corrected to ` org.apache.kafka.consumer.unsent.requests.queue.size`? AM2: Regards, Apoorv Mittal +44 7721681581 On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 2:45 PM Andrew Schofield <andrew_schofi...@live.com> wrote: > Hi Brenden, > Thanks for the updates. > > AS4. I see that you’ve added `.ms` to a bunch of the metrics reflecting the > fact that they’re measured in milliseconds. However, I observe that most > metrics > in Kafka that are measured in milliseconds, with some exceptions in Kafka > Connect > and MirrorMaker do not follow this convention. I would tend to err on the > side of > consistency with the existing metrics and not use `.ms`. However, that’s > just my > opinion, so I’d be interested to know what other reviewers of the KIP > think. > > Thanks, > Andrew > > > On 12 Jul 2024, at 20:11, Brenden Deluna <bdel...@confluent.io.INVALID> > wrote: > > > > Hey Lianet, > > > > Thank you for your suggestions and feedback! > > > > > > LM1. This has now been addressed. > > > > > > LM2. I think that would be a valuable addition to the current set of > > metrics, I will get that added. > > > > > > LM3. Again great idea, that would certainly be helpful. Will add that as > > well. > > > > > > Let me know if you have any more suggestions! > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Brenden > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 2:11 PM Brenden Deluna <bdel...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Lucas, > >> > >> Thank you for the feedback! I have addressed your comments: > >> > >> > >> LB1. Good catch there, I will update the names as needed. > >> > >> > >> LB2. Good catch again! I will update the name to be more consistent. > >> > >> > >> LB3. Thank you for pointing this out, I realized that all metric values > >> will actually be set to 0. I will specifiy this and explain why they > will > >> be 0. > >> > >> > >> Nit: This metric is referring to the queue of unsent requests in the > >> NetworkClientDelegate. For the metric descriptions I am trying to not > >> include too much of the implementation details, hence the reason that > >> description is quite short. I cannot think of other ways to describe the > >> metric without going deeper into the implementation, but please do let > me > >> know if you have any ideas. > >> > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Brenden > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 1:27 PM Lianet M. <liane...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hey Brenden, thanks for the KIP! Great to get more visibility into the > new > >>> consumer. > >>> > >>> LM1. +1 on Lucas's suggestion for including the unit in the name, seems > >>> clearer and consistent (I do see several time metrics including ms) > >>> > >>> LM2. What about a new metric for application-event-queue-time-ms. It > would > >>> be a complement to the application-event-queue-size you're proposing, > and > >>> it will tell us how long the events sit in the queue, waiting to be > >>> processed (from the time the API call adds the event to the queue, to > the > >>> time it's processed in the background thread). I find it would be very > >>> interesting. > >>> > >>> LM3. Thinking about the actual usage of > >>> "time-between-network-thread-poll-xxx" metric, I imagine it would be > >>> helpful to know more about what could be impacting it. As I see it, the > >>> network thread cadence could be mainly impacted by: 1- app event > >>> processing > >>> (generate requests), 2- network client poll (actual send/receive). For > 2, > >>> the new consumer reuses the same component as the legacy one, but 1 is > >>> specific to the new consumer, so what about a metric > >>> for application-event-processing-time-ms (we could consider avg I would > >>> say). It would be the time that the network thread takes to process all > >>> available events on each run. > >>> > >>> Cheers! > >>> Lianet > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 1:57 PM Lucas Brutschy > >>> <lbruts...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hey Brenden, > >>>> > >>>> thanks for the KIP! These will be great to observe and debug the > >>>> background thread of the new consumer. > >>>> > >>>> LB1. `time-between-network-thread-poll-max` → I see several similar > >>>> metrics including the unit in the metric name (ms or us). We could > >>>> consider this, although it's probably not strictly required. However, > >>>> at least the description should state the unit. Same for the `avg` > >>>> version. > >>>> LB2. `unsent-requests-size` → Naming sounds a bit like it's referring > >>>> to the size of the request. How about `unsent-request-queue-size` or > >>>> `unsent-request-count` or simply `unsent-requests`? > >>>> LB3. "the proposed metrics below will be set to null or 0." → which > >>>> one will be set to null and which ones will be set to 0, and why? > >>>> > >>>> nit: "The current number of unsent requests in the consumer network" → > >>>> Seems to be missing something? > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Lucas > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 7:28 PM Brenden Deluna > >>>> <bdel...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Andrew, > >>>>> Thank you for the feedback and your question. > >>>>> > >>>>> AS1. Great idea, I will get that added. > >>>>> > >>>>> AS2. For unsent-events-age-max, age will be calculated once the event > >>> is > >>>>> sent, so you are correct. > >>>>> > >>>>> AS3. I agree, I think that would be a helpful metric to add, thank > >>> you! I > >>>>> will get that added. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please let me know if you have any additional feedback, suggestions, > >>> or > >>>>> questions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Brenden > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 11:45 AM Andrew Schofield < > >>>> andrew_schofi...@live.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Brenden, > >>>>>> Thanks for the KIP. It fills a gap in the metrics for the new > >>> consumer > >>>>>> nicely. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> AS1. If using the CLASSIC protocol, and thus the > >>> LegacyKafkaConsumer, > >>>>>> I would expect that the metrics do not exist at all. Maybe say > >>>> something > >>>>>> like > >>>>>> “These metrics are for the new consumer implementation using the > >>>>>> CONSUMER protocol”. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> AS2. For unsent-events-age-max, when is the age calculated? For > >>>> example, > >>>>>> is it calculated at the time that the unsent event is removed from > >>> the > >>>>>> list and sent, or does the metric reflect unsent events which are > >>> still > >>>>>> enqueued? I suspect the former, but thought I’d check. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> AS3. I think that unsent-events-age-avg would also be interesting to > >>>>>> get an idea of how long unsent events tend to sit around before > >>>> sending. > >>>>>> Of course, the question from AS2 would also apply to the average. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Andrew > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 10 Jul 2024, at 17:44, Philip Nee <p...@confluent.io.INVALID> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is the link to the KIP document. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1068%3A+New+JMX+metrics+for+the+new+KafkaConsumer > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Any comment is appreciated, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 10:14 AM Brenden Deluna > >>>>>> <bdel...@confluent.io.invalid> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hello everyone, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I would like to start the discussion thread for KIP-1068. This > >>> is a > >>>>>>>> relatively small KIP, only proposing to add a couple of new > >>> metrics. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If you have any suggestions or feedback, let me know, it will be > >>>> much > >>>>>>>> appreciated. > > >
