Hi, Rajini, Yes, if those error metrics are registered dynamically, we could worry about expiration later.
Thanks, Jun On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Rajini Sivaram <rajinisiva...@gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps we could register dynamically for now. If we find that the cost of > retaining these is high, we can add the code to expire them later. Is that > ok? > > Regards, > > Rajini > > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > Can we quantify the cost of having these metrics around if they are > > dynamically registered? Given that the maximum is bounded at development > > time, is it really worth all the extra code? > > > > Ismael > > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Rajini Sivaram <rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > Jun, > > > > > > It feels more consistent to add errors as yammer metrics similar to > other > > > request metrics. Perhaps we could add some code to track and remove > these > > > if unused? It is a bit more work, but it would keep the externals > > > consistent. > > > > > > Ismael/Manikumar, > > > > > > Agree that version as a String attribute makes more sense. > Unfortunately, > > > the whole KafkaMetric implementation is written around a single > "double" > > > type, so introducing a new type is a big change. But I suppose it can > be > > > done. I have updated the KIP. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Manikumar <manikumar.re...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I agree it will be good if we can add "commit id/version" as an > > > > attribute value. > > > > It will be easy to parse. But as of now, KafkaMetric supports only > > > > numerical values. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Rajini, > > > > > > > > > > About the gauges, I was thinking that the attribute would be the > > value > > > > > (i.e. commit id or version). I understand that Kafka Metrics > doesn't > > > > > support this (unlike Yammer Metrics), but would it make sense to > add? > > > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ismael, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Agree on keeping it simple with dynamic registration and no > > > expiry. > > > > > Will > > > > > > wait for Jun's feedback before updating KIP. > > > > > > 2. I have switched to two metrics for commit-id and version (not > > sure > > > > if > > > > > it > > > > > > matches what you meant). I also added the client-id tag which is > > used > > > > in > > > > > > all metrics from clients. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, Rajini. I think this is helpful too. A few > > > minor > > > > > > > comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. About the number of metrics and expiration, if we > dynamically > > > > > register > > > > > > > metrics for the error codes, the number is likely to be much > > lower > > > > than > > > > > > > 30*30, probably less than 100. If we were using Kafka Metrics > for > > > > this, > > > > > > we > > > > > > > could easily add a long expiration period to be conservative, > > but I > > > > am > > > > > > not > > > > > > > sure this is supported by Yammer Metrics. If it is not, there's > > an > > > > > > argument > > > > > > > for keeping it simple. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Would it make sense to use 2 gauges for the version and > commit > > > id? > > > > > It > > > > > > > seems more intuitive than having those values as tags. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > > > > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Makes sense. I have updated the KIP. > > > > > > > > 2. Moved to a new group ZooKeeperClient > > > > > > > > 3. It is a gauge, so it will have a single attribute called > > Value > > > > > with > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > constant value of 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Rajini, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. A few comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We have 30+ requests and 30+ error code and growing. So, > > the > > > > > > > > combination > > > > > > > > > can be large. Perhaps it's useful to expire an error metric > > if > > > > it's > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > longer updated after some time? We did something similar > for > > > the > > > > > > quota > > > > > > > > > metric. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. It's a bit weird to put the ZK latency metric under > > > > > > > > > type=SessionExpireListener. > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it's more intuitive to put it in a separate type. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. For the client version metric, since we representing > > > commit_id > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > version as tags in the metric name. So the mbean will have > no > > > > > > > attributes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Roger Hoover < > > > > > > roger.hoo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would useful to make clear somewhere for each > > > > metric, > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > level > > > > > > > > > > at which it's counted. I don't know all the details of > the > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > > > protocol > > > > > > > > > > but it might be something like > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ProduceRequest, Fetch Request - counted at per-partition > > > level > > > > > > > > > > All other requests are 1:1 with client requests? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Roger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Roger Hoover < > > > > > > > roger.hoo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rajini, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the KIP. These are very helpful > additions. > > > > One > > > > > > > > question > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > the error code metrics: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Will the total error counting happen at the the level > of > > > > topic > > > > > > > > > partition? > > > > > > > > > > > For example, if a single ProduceRequest contains > messages > > > to > > > > > > append > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > 3 > > > > > > > > > > > partitions and say all 3 appends are successful, the > > > counter > > > > > > > > > > > for kafka.network:type=RequestMetrics,name= > > > > > ErrorsPerSec,request= > > > > > > > > > > ProduceRequest,error=0 > > > > > > > > > > > will be incremented by 3? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Roger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > > > > > > > > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I have created a KIP to add some additional metrics to > > > > support > > > > > > > > health > > > > > > > > > > >> checks: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/ > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > > 188+-+ > > > > > > > > > > >> Add+new+metrics+to+support+health+checks > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Feedback and suggestions are welcome. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Regards, > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Rajini > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
