Hi Ryan, Thanks for the KIP.
Hmm, we don't really use the term "zookeeper brokers." That is confusing since ZK and Kafka are separate services. I would suggest a term like pre-KRaft brokers. > Zookeeper brokers currently register 0 for every controller metric. It's not 0 for every broker, is it? We should outline the circumstances when it's not 0 (i.e. one of these brokers is the active controller). > KRaft does not have this issue because processes with the "broker" role are > never > elected as the active controller. This is somewhat misleading since a node could have bother controller and broker roles. Maybe a clearer way of writing this would be "nodes that are not eligible to become controllers." > Proposed Changes > Zookeeper brokers expose 0 for controller metrics. KRaft brokers should not. It seems like we should document what metrics standby controllers expose when in KRaft mode. It seems like the two options are exposing 0 for these metrics, or exposing a similar value to the active controller. best, Colin On Fri, Aug 27, 2021, at 14:30, Ron Dagostino wrote: > Thanks for the KIP, Ryan. I agree this makes sense. It also reflects the > state of affairs right now: KRaft nodes that do not have the controller > role currently do not expose these metrics. Assuming this KIP ends up > being accepted, we would then close KAFKA-13140 and its associated PR > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11133. > > Ron > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 5:19 PM Ryan Dielhenn > <rdielh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > Hello kafka devs, > > > > I would like to start a discussion on a KIP I have created to change how > > controller metrics are exposed for KRaft brokers. > > > > Here is the KIP: > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP+771%3A+KRaft+brokers+should+not+expose+controller+metrics > > > > Regards, > > Ryan Dielhenn > > >
