Thanks for the feedback Andrew.
AS9: Yes, you are correct it's topic name and not topic id.
AS10: Thanks, I have updated the description.
Regards,
Apoorv Mittal
On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 10:56 AM Andrew Schofield <
andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> wrote:
> Hi Apoorv,
> A couple of additional comments.
>
> AS9: The tag share-partition : {group-topic-partition} confirm the format.
> I suppose it's
> one tag `group-id:topic-name:partition`, and not topic ID. Topic ID is
> clearly more
> authoritative, but I don't think it's usable in metrics.
>
> AS10: The description of the AcquisitionLockTimeoutMs would be better as
> "Tracks the number of acquisition locks for records which are not
> acknowledged within the timeout."
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Apoorv Mittal <apoorvmitta...@gmail.com>
> Sent: 05 November 2024 08:59
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org <dev@kafka.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1103: Additional metrics for cooperative
> consumption
>
> Hi All,
> Please let me know if there is any other feedback or suggestions.
>
> Regards,
> Apoorv Mittal
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 5:30 PM Apoorv Mittal <apoorvmitta...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Jun and Andrew for reviewing and feedback.
> >
> > J1: I was thinking of having metrics as per the APIs in
> > SharePartitionManager but I think you are right. This is something not
> > beneficial to track as the release should only happen when a client
> sends a
> > leave group request. I have removed this metric.
> >
> > J2: Moved to Histogram.
> >
> > J3: Moved to Meter. I have removed RequestTopicPartitionsFetchEmptyCount
> > from KIP (as mentioned by Andrew - AS8) as
> RequestTopicPartitionsFetchRatio
> > moved to Histogram. Also I have marked InFlightMessageCount as Meter, so
> > shall capture the rate better.
> >
> > AS0: Done, specified specifically in the Motivation section.
> >
> > AS1: Hmmm, I thought about that earlier and was thinking about keeping
> the
> > abstracted share fetch APIs metrics in ShareGroupMetrics itself. However
> I
> > think the Share Fetch and Share Acknowledge can be part of
> BrokerTopicMetrics
> > as these operations happen by Share Consumer. Do you think we should also
> > move the RequestTopicPartitionsFetchRatio metric? I think we shouldn't
> and
> > it should be in ShareGroupMetrics itself, please let me know what you
> think.
> >
> > AS2: Yes you are right, it can support all topic rate as well. I have
> > added the suggestion.
> >
> > AS3: I have removed this metric as part of J1 comment.
> >
> > AS4,AS6: We already have a share-acknowledgement Meter metric defined in
> > KIP-932. I am of the opinion to move the KIP-932 share-acknowledgement
> > metric to TotalShareAcknowledgementRequestsPerSec. Hence I have added
> > corresponding FailedShareAcknowledgementRequestsPerSec in this KIP.
> >
> > AS5: It counts the failure of a share acknowledge request. Similar to
> > multi topic partition fetch, acknowledge can also be multi topic
> partition
> > but a single acknowledge request might either fail completely or at topic
> > partition level. Hence this metric tracks the failure as similar to
> > FailedFetchRequestsPerSec or FailedShareFetchRequestsPerSec.
> >
> > AS7: I have added some examples and another metric FetchLockTimeMs, which
> > should help in optimizing behaviour.
> >
> > AS8: Yes, we might be able to work with low percentiles to investigate
> > further hence I have removed RequestTopicPartitionsFetchEmptyCount.
> > However Histogram will give us percentiles but not the raw bucketed
> > value, in case we think we need such data explicitly then might consider
> > adding it but for now it's removed.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Apoorv Mittal
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 1:03 PM Andrew Schofield <
> > andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Apoorv,
> >> Thanks for the KIP. I have some comments.
> >>
> >> AS0: These are broker metrics and not client metrics. I don't think the
> >> KIP states that and it probably should.
> >>
> >> AS1: TotalShareFetchRequestsPerSec is inspired by the existing metric
> >> TotalFetchRequestsPerSec. That one is in the BrokerTopicMetrics group
> >> so I would expect the new metric to be in the same group. This comment
> >> applies to all of the ShareGroupMetrics broker metrics scoped to a
> topic.
> >>
> >> AS2: Similarly to TotalFetchRequestPerSec, does the new metric support
> >> omitting the topic tag in order to obtain the all-topic rate? I believe
> so
> >> because it follows the existing metrics. I guess the tag is actually
> >> `topic=([-.\w]+)` to copy the existing notation.
> >>
> >> AS3: What's a share release? Does it count releases which are made
> >> by ShareFetch/Acknowledge requests as well as implicit ones as a
> >> result of share session expiration or closure?
> >>
> >> AS4: I see there is FailedShareAcknowledgementRequestsPerSec.
> >> If this corresponds specifically to the ShareAcknowledge API, then
> >> the name should be FailedShareAcknowledgeRequestsPerSec.
> >>
> >> AS5: What does FailedShareAcknowledgementRequestsPerSec
> >> actually count? This is a per-topic metric and a ShareAcknowledge
> >> can mention several topics, but actually it can also operate on many
> >> acquired records specifying any of the different acknowledgement
> >> types that KIP-932 defines.
> >>
> >> AS6: Why no TotalShareAcknowledgementRequestsPerSec?
> >>
> >> AS7: I think I like the concept behind RequestTopicPartitionsFetchRatio,
> >> but it would really help to include some examples of how it works. You
> >> mention 4 potential causes for low ratios, so it would be nice to see
> how
> >> each of them would be evident from the metrics and configurations.
> >> This is going to be valuable information for operating this in
> production.
> >>
> >> AS8: As Jun mentioned, maybe a histogram would be appropriate
> >> for RequestTopicPartitionsFetchRatio. Then I wonder whether it's
> >> worth having a separate RequestTopicPartitionsFetchEmptyCount since
> >> those are requests for which the fetch ratio was 0.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Andrew
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.INVALID>
> >> Sent: 30 October 2024 23:07
> >> To: dev@kafka.apache.org <dev@kafka.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1103: Additional metrics for cooperative
> >> consumption
> >>
> >> Hi, Apoorv,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the KIP. A few comments.
> >>
> >> 1. TotalShareReleaseRequestsPerSec: This is a bit weird since there is
> >> no ShareReleaseRequest.
> >>
> >> 2. RequestTopicPartitionsFetchRatio and InFlightBatchMessageCount: It
> >> seems
> >> Histogram is more appropriate for them.
> >>
> >> 3. RequestTopicPartitionsFetchEmptyCount and
> AcquisitionLockTimeoutCount:
> >> The problem with using gauge is that if the value changes quickly, we
> may
> >> not be able to capture the occurrence of empty fetch or lock timeout.
> >> Meter
> >> captures those rare events better.
> >>
> >> Jun
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 8:48 AM Apoorv Mittal <apoorvmitta...@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Everyone,
> >> > I would like to start a discussion on KIP-1103:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1103%3A+Additional+metrics+for+cooperative+consumption
> >> >
> >> > This KIP extends KIP-932 to provide additional metrics for
> >> > Queues/Cooperative consumption.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Apoorv Mittal
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
