I meant to write: I've also updated the KIP to clarify that every task must have exactly one non-null *status* at all times.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:55 PM Cyrus Vafadari <cy...@confluent.io> wrote: > Guozhang, > > Both of Kafka's implementations of "StatusBackingStore" immediately delete > the task from the backign store when you try to set it to DESTROYED, so > we'd actually expect it to always be zero. A nonzero number of destroyed > tasks would either indicate a new implementation of StatusBackingStore, or > a malfunctioning StatusBackingStore (e.g. caches out of sync with compacted > topic). This metric will usually be uninteresting, and was only included > for completeness. It could possibly catch a bug. > > Gwen, > I had not considered this option. I agree there is an advantage to having > more granular data about both connector and worker. The main disadvantage > would be that it increases the number of metrics by a factor of > num_workers, but I'd say this is an acceptable tradeoff. Another advantage > of your suggestion is that the public interfaces for WorkerConnector would > be unchanged, and the new metrics can be added within the Worker class. > > I've also updated the KIP to clarify that every task must have exactly one > non-null task at all times. > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:41 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello Cyrus, >> >> Thanks for the KIP. I just have one nit question about Connect destroyed >> tasks: is it an ever-increasing number? If yes, the corresponding metric >> value would be increasing indefinitely as well. Is that intentional? >> >> Otherwise, lgtm. >> >> >> Guozhang >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:14 PM Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: >> >> > Sorry to join so late, but did we consider a single set of task-count >> > metrics and using tags to scope each data point to a specific >> > connector and worker (and in the future perhaps also user)? >> > >> > It will make analysis of the data easier - someone may want to >> > breakdown tasks by both worker and connector to detect imbalanced >> > assignments. >> > >> > Are there downsides to this approach? >> > >> > And a small nit: it will be good to capture in the KIP what are the >> > expectations regarding overlap and disjointness of the proposed >> > metrics. For example, is running+paused+failed = total? Can a task be >> > failed and destroyed and therefore count in 2 of those metrics? >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:29 PM Cyrus Vafadari <cy...@confluent.io> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > Konstantine, >> > > >> > > This is a good suggestion. Since the suggestion to add 2 additional >> > > statuses analogous to the 3 proposed, it is a very minor change of no >> > > structural consequence to the KIP. >> > > >> > > I've updated the KIP to incorporate your suggestion, and any voters >> who >> > > disagree should definitely respond in the thread. >> > > >> > > Cyrus >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 11:16 AM Konstantine Karantasis < >> > > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Thanks Cyrus, >> > > > >> > > > this is a nice and straightforward addition. >> > > > >> > > > I'm +1 too, but I'd like to return with a question here as well >> > regarding >> > > > whether the unassigned tasks will be taken into account. >> > > > Especially after KIP-415 we might start seeing this status for >> specific >> > > > periods of time. Therefore, I think it's a meaningful addition. >> > > > Then there's the `destroyed` status which might be a lot more >> > transient but >> > > > we could also include for the sake of completion. >> > > > Check org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime.AbstractStatus for the list >> of >> > all >> > > > possible statuses. >> > > > >> > > > Konstantine >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:32 PM Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Thanks, Cyrus. >> > > > > >> > > > > +1 (binding) >> > > > > >> > > > > Randall Hauch >> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 10:36 AM Andrew Schofield < >> > > > > andrew_schofi...@live.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > +1 (non-binding) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Andrew Schofield >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On 05/06/2019, 14:04, "Ryanne Dolan" <ryannedo...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > +1 (non-binding) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks >> > > > > > Ryanne >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019, 11:29 PM Cyrus Vafadari < >> > cy...@confluent.io> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi all, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Like like to start voting in the following KIP: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwiki.apache.org%2Fconfluence%2Fdisplay%2FKAFKA%2FKIP-475%253A%2BNew%2BMetric%2Bto%2BMeasure%2BNumber%2Bof%2BTasks%2Bon%2Ba%2BConnector&data=02%7C01%7C%7C95f8a8ebb4a44882773808d6e9b65983%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636953366722392496&sdata=vbE%2BjrAapcQ68Vnwh5OkY1FFoOzFHs9rZRaPHlwqxSU%3D&reserved=0 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Discussion thread: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread.html%2Fbf7c92224aa798336c14d7e96ec8f2e3406c61879ec381a50652acfe%40%253Cdev.kafka.apache.org%253E&data=02%7C01%7C%7C95f8a8ebb4a44882773808d6e9b65983%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636953366722402501&sdata=0JpQuCpTKwJyOjWH8cM%2B6eU%2FjNT28eE7xvMOBQgghjA%3D&reserved=0 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks! >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Cyrus >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Gwen Shapira >> > Product Manager | Confluent >> > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap >> > Follow us: Twitter | blog >> > >> >> >> -- >> -- Guozhang >> >
