Mailing-List: contact dev-help@kafka.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@kafka.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFc58G_zmyAPvMpGXoPS389mbfKWbKQ2Wpcy47Cf1gcg0nHnmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOJcB3-nfOOOiXjCkdCPvJJcyuxo5Mc--ZpEhoZuhJ+G3=ygHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPOm=TNh7U7=YUM6rOM7HvG=p2TPVEHKhNTyQuOQ-huDfZfegg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPOm=TN3w=G7+hi+e5PPLLwhZ=GfiZHpzHwZb-qqmTKW8tkxkg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFc58G_zmyAPvMpGXoPS389mbfKWbKQ2Wpcy47Cf1gcg0nHnmA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rajini Sivaram <rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:19:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOJcB39TS+0uSbhHaHuS3b=SZOMEW063MOgvj4=VpS8vO3MDpw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-188 - Add new metrics to support health checks
To: dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113fb92c16b6b70556ef8140"
archived-at: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:19:14 -0000

--001a113fb92c16b6b70556ef8140
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

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 <jun@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.hoover@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.hoover@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 <
> > rajinisivaram@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
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

--001a113fb92c16b6b70556ef8140--