Hey Ismael, Thanks for the feedback! Could you please vote for the KIP if it looks good? Then I will find two more committers to vote as well.
Thanks, Dong On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Edoardo and everyone for the comment! That is a very good point. I > have updated to wiki to use UnderMinIsrPartitionCount as the per-broker > metric name and UnderMinIsr as the per-partition metric name. The > motivation section has also been updated to clarify how the existence of > UnderMinIsrPartition reduces the availability of the Kafka service. > > Please find the latest wiki at https://cwiki.apache.org/ > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-164-+Add+UnderMinIsrPartitionCount+and+ > per-partition+UnderMinIsr+metrics . > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > >> Thanks for the KIP, Dong. I agree that that the metrics are useful. Like >> Edoardo and Mickael said, it seems like it may be better to choose a >> different name. A couple of additional suggestions: >> `UnderMinIsrPartitionCount` and `UnderMinIsr`. >> >> Ismael >> >> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Mickael Maison < >> mickael.mai...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > What about simply calling them 'BelowIsrPartitionCount' and 'BelowIsr' ? >> > >> > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Edoardo Comar <eco...@uk.ibm.com> >> wrote: >> > > Hi Dong, >> > > >> > > many thanks for the KIP. It's a very useful metric. >> > > >> > > by saying >> > >> Unavailable partitions could be most easily defined as “The number of >> > > partitions that this broker leads for which the ISR is insufficient to >> > > meet the minimum ISR required.” >> > > >> > > I presume you meant to call 'Unavailable' the partitions whose >> ISR.size < >> > > min.insync ? >> > > >> > > Now, a partition whose ISR is < min.insync can be still used to >> consume >> > > messages from. It also can be used to produce messages to, as long as >> the >> > > producer does not request acks=-1 (i.e. acks=all). >> > > >> > > So it is not exactly 'Unavailable' ... perhaps we could call it >> 'Unsafe' >> > ? >> > > Or the community can come up with a better name. >> > > >> > > I recently had a few discussions about the issue, and I opened a PR to >> > > update the docs (that's still hoping to be reviewed and merged ... >> hint >> > > hint :-) >> > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/3035 >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-5290 >> > > >> > > Thanks! >> > > Edo >> > > -------------------------------------------------- >> > > Edoardo Comar >> > > IBM Message Hub >> > > eco...@uk.ibm.com >> > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > From: Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> >> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org >> > > Date: 30/05/2017 10:51 >> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-164 Add unavailablePartitionCount >> and >> > > per-partition Unavailable metrics >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > +1 >> > > It's a mystery how this didn't already exist as it's one of the key >> > > cluster's health indicator >> > > >> > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> >> wrote: >> > >> Hi, >> > >> >> > >> Sounds good. I was sure this existed already for some reason :) >> > >> >> > >> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:06 AM Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> Hi, >> > >>> >> > >>> We created KIP-164 to propose adding per-partition metric >> *Unavailable* >> > > and >> > >>> per-broker metric *UnavailablePartitionCount* >> > >>> >> > >>> The KIP wik can be found at >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-164-+Add+ >> > unavailablePartitionCount+and+per-partition+Unavailable+metrics >> > > >> > >>> . >> > >>> >> > >>> Comments are welcome. >> > >>> >> > >>> Thanks, >> > >>> Dong >> > >>> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Unless stated otherwise above: >> > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >> number >> > > 741598. >> > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 >> > 3AU >> > > >> > >> > >
