Just updated the wiki to clarify that.
Thanks everyone for the votes. KIP-92 has passed with +3 (binding) and +2
(non-binding).
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> That seems reasonable. It would be good to update the KIP to make this
> clear.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ismael,
> >
> > Thanks for the comments. Good observation. I guess for max lag of all the
> > partitions the average value is less meaningful because the lag can be
> from
> > different partitions, so an average of lags from different partitions at
> > different times seems hard to reason about. On the other hand, for per
> > partition lag, the average value of the same partition at different times
> > seems having some real meaning?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the KIP, it's a useful improvement. Just one question, the
> KIP
> > > states that it's about adding per partition metrics for metrics that
> > > already exist. However, when I look at the code, it seems that
> > > `records-lag-avg` doesn't exist?
> > >
> > > this.recordsFetchLag = metrics.sensor("records-lag");
> > > this.recordsFetchLag.add(metrics.metricName("records-lag-max",
> > > this.metricGrpName, "The maximum lag in terms of number of records for
> > any
> > > partition in this window"), new Max());
> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I want to start a voting thread on KIP-92 which proposes to add per
> > > > partition lag metrics to KafkaConsumer. The KIP wiki page is below:
> > > >
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > > 92+-+Add+per+partition+lag+metrics+to+KafkaConsumer
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
