Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-177 Consumer perf tool should count rebalance time

OK, sounds good. Let's just make sure we note this in the upgrade notes. Ismael On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > Ismael, I debated that also, but the main point was to make users aware of > the rebalance latency (with KIP-134 in mind). I'm guessing no one would > notic

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-177 Consumer perf tool should count rebalance time

Ismael, I debated that also, but the main point was to make users aware of the rebalance latency (with KIP-134 in mind). I'm guessing no one would notice if it required another option. Note that the KIP does preserve the existing fields (and in the same order), so if it is parsed as generic csv dat

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-177 Consumer perf tool should count rebalance time

I think this is a good chance although it's unfortunate that it's likely to break code that is parsing the output of the performance tool. Would it make sense to only enable this if an option is provided? Ismael On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > +Users > > Thanks for the

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-177 Consumer perf tool should count rebalance time

+Users Thanks for the KIP. I think tracking the rebalance time separately will help resolve some confusion about the performance results given the rebalance delay in KIP-134. And it seems generally useful to know how much overhead is coming from the rebalance in any case. -Jason On Thu, Jul 13,

[DISCUSS] KIP-177 Consumer perf tool should count rebalance time

Hi all, I opened up a new KIP (KIP-177) concerning consumer perf tool counting and showing rebalance time in the output. Be free to leave your comments here. Thanks in advance.