Thanks for the input, everyone! I'm marking this KIP as accepted with 3 binding votes (Gwen, Guozhang, Randall) 3 nonbinding votes (Andrew, Konstantine, Ryanne)
The PR is updated at https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6843/files On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 10:52 AM Andrew Schofield <andrew_schofi...@live.com> wrote: > +1 (non-binding). Nice KIP. > > On 23/06/2019, 17:27, "Gwen Shapira" <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > > +1 from me too > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 10:30 AM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Cyrus, thanks for the updates, +1. > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:58 PM Cyrus Vafadari <cy...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > Many thanks for the feedback. Per Gwen's suggestion, I've updated > the KIP > > > to specify that the task count will be per-worker (no additional > MBean > > tag, > > > since each process is a worker) and per-connector (MBean tag). > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:24 PM Cyrus Vafadari <cy...@confluent.io > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I meant to write: > > > > I've also updated the KIP to clarify that every task must have > exactly > > > one > > > > non-null *status* at all times. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:55 PM Cyrus Vafadari < > cy...@confluent.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Guozhang, > > > >> > > > >> Both of Kafka's implementations of "StatusBackingStore" > immediately > > > >> delete the task from the backign store when you try to set it to > > > DESTROYED, > > > >> so we'd actually expect it to always be zero. A nonzero number > of > > > destroyed > > > >> tasks would either indicate a new implementation of > > StatusBackingStore, > > > or > > > >> a malfunctioning StatusBackingStore (e.g. caches out of sync > with > > > compacted > > > >> topic). This metric will usually be uninteresting, and was only > > included > > > >> for completeness. It could possibly catch a bug. > > > >> > > > >> Gwen, > > > >> I had not considered this option. I agree there is an advantage > to > > > having > > > >> more granular data about both connector and worker. The main > > > disadvantage > > > >> would be that it increases the number of metrics by a factor of > > > >> num_workers, but I'd say this is an acceptable tradeoff. Another > > > advantage > > > >> of your suggestion is that the public interfaces for > WorkerConnector > > > would > > > >> be unchanged, and the new metrics can be added within the Worker > > class. > > > >> > > > >> I've also updated the KIP to clarify that every task must have > exactly > > > >> one non-null task at all times. > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:41 PM Guozhang Wang < > wangg...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hello Cyrus, > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks for the KIP. I just have one nit question about Connect > > > destroyed > > > >>> tasks: is it an ever-increasing number? If yes, the > corresponding > > > metric > > > >>> value would be increasing indefinitely as well. Is that > intentional? > > > >>> > > > >>> Otherwise, lgtm. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Guozhang > > > >>> > > > >>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:14 PM Gwen Shapira < > g...@confluent.io> > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > Sorry to join so late, but did we consider a single set of > > task-count > > > >>> > metrics and using tags to scope each data point to a specific > > > >>> > connector and worker (and in the future perhaps also user)? > > > >>> > > > > >>> > It will make analysis of the data easier - someone may want > to > > > >>> > breakdown tasks by both worker and connector to detect > imbalanced > > > >>> > assignments. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Are there downsides to this approach? > > > >>> > > > > >>> > And a small nit: it will be good to capture in the KIP what > are the > > > >>> > expectations regarding overlap and disjointness of the > proposed > > > >>> > metrics. For example, is running+paused+failed = total? Can > a task > > be > > > >>> > failed and destroyed and therefore count in 2 of those > metrics? > > > >>> > > > > >>> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:29 PM Cyrus Vafadari < > cy...@confluent.io > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > Konstantine, > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > This is a good suggestion. Since the suggestion to add 2 > > additional > > > >>> > > statuses analogous to the 3 proposed, it is a very minor > change > > of > > > no > > > >>> > > structural consequence to the KIP. > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > I've updated the KIP to incorporate your suggestion, and > any > > voters > > > >>> who > > > >>> > > disagree should definitely respond in the thread. > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > Cyrus > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 11:16 AM Konstantine Karantasis < > > > >>> > > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Thanks Cyrus, > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > this is a nice and straightforward addition. > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > I'm +1 too, but I'd like to return with a question here > as well > > > >>> > regarding > > > >>> > > > whether the unassigned tasks will be taken into account. > > > >>> > > > Especially after KIP-415 we might start seeing this > status for > > > >>> specific > > > >>> > > > periods of time. Therefore, I think it's a meaningful > addition. > > > >>> > > > Then there's the `destroyed` status which might be a lot > more > > > >>> > transient but > > > >>> > > > we could also include for the sake of completion. > > > >>> > > > Check org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime.AbstractStatus > for the > > > list > > > >>> of > > > >>> > all > > > >>> > > > possible statuses. > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > Konstantine > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:32 PM Randall Hauch < > rha...@gmail.com > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > Thanks, Cyrus. > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > +1 (binding) > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Randall Hauch > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 10:36 AM Andrew Schofield < > > > >>> > > > > andrew_schofi...@live.com> > > > >>> > > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Andrew Schofield > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > On 05/06/2019, 14:04, "Ryanne Dolan" < > > ryannedo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >>> > wrote: > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Thanks > > > >>> > > > > > Ryanne > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019, 11:29 PM Cyrus Vafadari < > > > >>> > cy...@confluent.io> > > > >>> > > > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Hi all, > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Like like to start voting in the following KIP: > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwiki.apache.org%2Fconfluence%2Fdisplay%2FKAFKA%2FKIP-475%253A%2BNew%2BMetric%2Bto%2BMeasure%2BNumber%2Bof%2BTasks%2Bon%2Ba%2BConnector&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5613cc7be8084f15b82a08d6f7f7a226%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636969040283157621&sdata=DOweIjXCIxA%2Bo8V2uKmR7wPzR4Nceoph4%2B4BKotfTuI%3D&reserved=0 > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Discussion thread: > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread.html%2Fbf7c92224aa798336c14d7e96ec8f2e3406c61879ec381a50652acfe%40%253Cdev.kafka.apache.org%253E&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5613cc7be8084f15b82a08d6f7f7a226%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636969040283157621&sdata=l9Te5p3evVOIVnSASAgThB5F1YEpo%2B1pMwkC7Nauyz4%3D&reserved=0 > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Thanks! > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Cyrus > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > -- > > > >>> > Gwen Shapira > > > >>> > Product Manager | Confluent > > > >>> > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > > >>> > Follow us: Twitter | blog > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> -- Guozhang > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > > > > >
