Hi, Apoorv,
Thanks for the updated KIP. Just one minor comment.
Why is FetchLockRatio a Histogram? Currently, all ratios are measured as
Meter.
Jun
On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 4:05 PM Apoorv Mittal <apoorvmitta...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Jun,
>
> 11. Got it, agree. I was thinking either to have FetchLockRatio or
> FetchLockIdleRatio, though both of them should convey the same
> information. I have added FetchLockRatio as per your suggestion.
> Also I have added TopicPartitionsAcquireTimeMs which can track the time
> spent by any share fetch request to acquire any share partition. It's hard
> to track the amount of time spent on waiting for a single share partition
> but we can track the time spent to acquire any.
>
> 14. Corrected, thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Apoorv Mittal
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 10:16 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Apoorv,
> >
> > 11. I was thinking that it would be useful to know if there is any
> tension
> > when acquiring the share partition lock. This is not quite captured by
> > FetchLockTimeMs. Perhaps we could add another metric that measures the
> > amount of time that a request needs to wait before acquiring a lock.
> >
> > 14. Should we change share-partition={group-topic-partition} now that we
> > have separate tags for group, topic and partition?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jun
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 12:51 PM Apoorv Mittal <apoorvmitta...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jun and Chia,
> > > Thanks for the feedback.
> > >
> > > 10. Done.
> > >
> > > 11. I have moved FetchLockTimeMs to Histogram. I didn't understand
> > > which ratio shall FetchLockRatio Metric should hold i.e. against what
> > value
> > > we should compare the partitions locked. Though I have added Metric
> > > RequestTopicPartitionsFetchRatio which provides a ratio of partition
> > locked
> > > vs requested. Shall we have something else as well?
> > >
> > > 12. Yeah, true. Done.
> > >
> > > AS0: Make sense, I have moved to group, topic, partition tags as like
> > > Kafka.cluster Partition metrics.
> > >
> > > AS1: Successful AcknowledgementRequests are also important and they are
> > > already defined in KIP-932 broker metrics. We shall change the metric
> > name
> > > for successful AcknowledgementRequests in KIP-932 itself while
> > implementing
> > > these metrics.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Apoorv Mittal
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 7:36 PM Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
