What do people think if we exposed: * eligible topics/replicas pending delete * ineligible topics/replicas pending delete
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:16 PM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> wrote: > It looks like topicsIneligibleForDeletion is a subset of topicsToBeDeleted > in the controller. > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:16 AM Stanislav Kozlovski < > stanis...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > ineligible replicas/topics are not included in the pending metrics, > right? > > If so, sounds good to me. > > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:12 PM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Yes I think exposing ineligible topics would be useful as well. The > > > controller also tracks this ineligible state for replicas. Would that > be > > > useful to expose as well? > > > > > > In that case, we'd be up to four new metrics: > > > * topics pending delete > > > * replicas pending delete > > > * ineligible topics > > > * ineligible replicas > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 5:16 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. This is useful. The controller also maintains a > set > > > for > > > > topics which are awaiting deletion, but currently ineligible. A topic > > > which > > > > is undergoing reassignment, for example, is ineligible for deletion. > > > Would > > > > it make sense to have a metric for this as well? > > > > > > > > -Jason > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Updated the KIP with a count of replicas awaiting deletion. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback, Stan. That's a good point about the > > > partition > > > > > > count -- I'll poke around and see if I can surface this value in > > the > > > > > > Controller. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:13 AM Stanislav Kozlovski < > > > > > stanis...@confluent.io> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks for the KIP David, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> As you mentioned in the KIP - "when a large number of topics > > > > > (partitions, > > > > > >> really) are deleted at once, it can take significant time for > the > > > > > >> Controller to process everything. > > > > > >> In that sense, does it make sense to have the metric expose the > > > number > > > > > of > > > > > >> partitions that are pending deletion, as opposed to topics? > > Perhaps > > > > even > > > > > >> both? > > > > > >> My reasoning is that this metric alone wouldn't say much if we > had > > > one > > > > > >> topic with 1000 partitions versus a topic with 1 partition > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:19 PM Harsha Chintalapani < > > ka...@harsha.io > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks for the KIP. Its useful metric to have. LGTM. > > > > > >> > -Harsha > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:24 AM, David Arthur < > > > > > davidart...@apache.org> > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Hello all, I'd like to start a discussion for > > > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > > > > > >> > > > KIP-503%3A+Add+metric+for+number+of+topics+marked+for+deletion > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks! > > > > > >> > > David > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> Best, > > > > > >> Stanislav > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > David Arthur > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > David Arthur > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > David Arthur > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best, > > Stanislav > > > > > -- > David Arthur > -- Best, Stanislav
