Thanks for the KIP John. Reading the material on the related Jiras, I am wondering what `reason` tags you want to introduce? Can you elaborate? The KIP should list those IMHO.
About the fine grained metrics vs the roll-up: you say that > the coarse metric aggregates across two dimensions simultaneously Can you elaborate why this is an issue? I am not convinced atm that we should put the fine grained metrics into INFO level and remove the roll-up at thread level. > Given that they have to do this sum to get a usable top-level view This is a fair concern, but I don't share the conclusion. Offering a built-in `KafkaStreams` "client" roll-up out of the box might be a better solution. In the past we did not offer this due to performance concerns, but we could allow an "opt-in" mechanism. If you disagree, can you provide some reasoning and add them to the "Rejected alternatives" section. To rephrase: I understand the issue about missing top-level view, but instead of going more fine grained, we should consider to add this top-level view and add/keep the fine grained metrics at DEBUG level only I am +1 to add TopologyTestDriver#metrics() and to remove old metrics directly as you suggested. -Matthias On 3/28/18 6:42 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > Looks good to me. > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:11 PM, John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I am proposing KIP-274 to improve the metrics around skipped records in >> Streams. >> >> Please find the details here: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- >> 274%3A+Kafka+Streams+Skipped+Records+Metrics >> >> Please let me know what you think! >> >> Thanks, >> -John >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
