Hi Bruno, Thank you for your comments. BC1. I think that is a great point, I was not aware that we could not add the metrics based on which protocol is being used. I will update the KIP to reflect that change.
BC2. There is not any specific reason for this, really it has just never been suggested in this thread. I will add them to get some opinions on if those would be useful and will go with the group consensus. Thank you, Brenden On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 11:03 AM Bruno Cadonna <cado...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Brenden, > > BC1. In his first e-mail Andrew wrote "I would expect that the metrics > do not exist at all". I agree with him. I think it would be better to > not add those metrics at all if the CLASSIC protocol is used rather than > the metrics exist and are all constant 0. This should be possible by not > adding the metrics to the metrics registry if the CONSUMER protocol is > not used. > > BC2. Is there a specific reason you do not propose > background-event-queue-time-max and background-event-queue-time-avg? If > folk think those are not useful we do not need to add them. However, if > those are not useful, why is background-event-queue-size useful. I was > just wondering about the asymmetry between background-event-queue and > application-event-queue. > > Best, > Bruno > > > > On 7/19/24 9:14 PM, Brenden Deluna wrote: > > Hi Apoorv, > > Thank you for your comments, I will address each. > > > > AM1. I can see the usefulness in also having an > > 'application-event-queue-age-max' to get an idea of outliers and how they > > may be affecting the average metric. I will add that. > > > > AM2. I agree with you there, I think 'time' is a better descriptor here > > than 'age'. I will update those metric names as well. > > > > AM3. Similar to above comments, I will change the name of that metric to > be > > more consistent. And I think a max metric would also be useful here, > adding > > that. > > > > AM4. Yes, good catch there. Will update that as well. > > > > Thank you, > > Brenden > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 8:14 AM Apoorv Mittal <apoorvmitta...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> 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. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > >
