hi Apoorv
sorry for late response:
AS0: How can users distinguish between the group and topic in the format
share-partition={group-topic-partition} since `-` is a valid character in both
group and topic?
AS1: Why do we only have metrics for failed AcknowledgementRequests? Aren't
successful AcknowledgementRequests also important for metrics?
Thanks,
Chia-Ping
On 2024/11/06 13:58:08 Apoorv Mittal wrote:
> Hi All,
> Please let me know if there is any other feedback. Else will start a voting
> thread tomorrow.
>
> Regards,
> Apoorv Mittal
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 12:21 PM Apoorv Mittal <apoorvmitta...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
