This vote has passed with 4 binding votes (Ismael, Jason, Jun, me) and 3
non-binding votes (Manikumar, Thomas Crayford, Mickael). Many thanks for
the votes and feedback.
I will update the KIP page.
Regards,
Rajini
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Rajini Sivaram
wrote:
> Thank you, Jun.
>
> If
Thank you, Jun.
If there are no other concerns by the end of the day, I will close the vote
tomorrow.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Jun Rao wrote:
> Hi, Raijini,
>
> Thanks for the explanation. We can leave those as they are then.
>
> Jun
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Rajini Sivaram
>
Hi, Raijini,
Thanks for the explanation. We can leave those as they are then.
Jun
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Rajini Sivaram
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have added one more metric to KIP-188 to show the current status of
> broker's ZooKeeper connections. Please let me know if you have any
> con
Hi all,
I have added one more metric to KIP-188 to show the current status of
broker's ZooKeeper connections. Please let me know if you have any concerns.
Hi Jun,
I was wondering which is a better group for FetchMessageConversionsPerSec,
now that we have MessageConversionsTimeMs at the request l
Hi, Raijini,
Thanks for the KIP. +1. Just a minor comment.
Since we only measure MessageConversionsTimeMs at the request type level,
is it useful to collect the following metrics at the topic level?
*MBean*:
kafka.server:type=BrokerTopicMetrics,name=FetchMessageConversionsPerSec,topic=([-.\w]+)
Ok, thanks, leaving as is.
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> >
> > I think I prefer the names with `Message` in them. For people less
> familiar
> > with Kafka, it makes it a bit clearer, I think.
>
>
> Works for me.
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
>
> I think I prefer the names with `Message` in them. For people less familiar
> with Kafka, it makes it a bit clearer, I think.
Works for me.
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> I think I prefer the names with `Message` in them. For people less familiar
> with Kafka, it make
I think I prefer the names with `Message` in them. For people less familiar
with Kafka, it makes it a bit clearer, I think.
Ismael
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Rajini Sivaram
wrote:
> I am ok with dropping 'Message'. So the names would be
> FetchConversionsPerSec,
> ProduceConversionsPerSec
I am ok with dropping 'Message'. So the names would be FetchConversionsPerSec,
ProduceConversionsPerSec and ConversionsTimeMs. The first two sound fine.
Not so sure about ConversionsTimeMs, but since it appears with
Produce/Fetch as the request tag, it should be ok. I haven't updated the
KIP yet. I
>
> I was wondering about the message versus record question. The fact that we
> already have MessagesInPerSec seemed to favour the former. The other aspect
> is that for produce requests, we can up convert as well, so it seemed
> better to keep it generic.
Yeah, so I thought maybe we could bypas
I was wondering about the message versus record question. The fact that we
already have MessagesInPerSec seemed to favour the former. The other aspect
is that for produce requests, we can up convert as well, so it seemed
better to keep it generic.
Ismael
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Jason Gust
+1 (non binding)
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> +1 Lots of good stuff in here.
>
> One minor nit: in the name `FetchDownConversionsPerSec`, it's implicit that
> down-conversion is for messages. Could we do the same for
> `MessageConversionsTimeMs` and drop the `Message`?
+1 Lots of good stuff in here.
One minor nit: in the name `FetchDownConversionsPerSec`, it's implicit that
down-conversion is for messages. Could we do the same for
`MessageConversionsTimeMs` and drop the `Message`? Then we don't have to
decide if it should be 'Record' instead.
On Tue, Sep 5, 201
Hi Ismael,
1. Yes, that makes sense. Updated the KIP to use FetchMessageConversionsPerSec
and ProduceMessageConversionsPerSec.
Thank you,
Rajini
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Thanks Rajini.
>
> 1. I meant a topic metric, but we could have one for fetch and one for
> pro
Thanks Rajini.
1. I meant a topic metric, but we could have one for fetch and one for
produce differentiated by the additional tag. The advantage is that the
name would be consistent with the request metric for message conversions.
However, on closer inspection, this would make the name inconsiste
Hi Ismael,
1. At the moment FetchDownConversionsPerSec is a topic metric while
MessageConversionTimeMs is a request metric which indicates Produce/Fetch
as a tag. Are you suggesting that we should convert
FetchDownConversionsPerSec to a request metric called MessageConversionsPerSec
for fetch requ
Thanks Rajini, +1 (binding) from me. Just a few minor comments:
1. FetchDownConversionsPerSec should probably be MessageConversionsPerSec
with a request tag for consistency with MessageConversionsTimeMs. The text
in that paragraph should also be updated to talk about message conversions
instead of
+1 (non-binding)
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Manikumar wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Rajini Sivaram
> wrote:
>
> > All the suggestions on the discuss thread have been incorporated into the
> > KIP. Please let me know if you have any more concerns or else can
+1 (non-binding)
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Rajini Sivaram
wrote:
> All the suggestions on the discuss thread have been incorporated into the
> KIP. Please let me know if you have any more concerns or else can we
> proceed with voting for this KIP?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Rajini
>
> On Thu, Aug
All the suggestions on the discuss thread have been incorporated into the
KIP. Please let me know if you have any more concerns or else can we
proceed with voting for this KIP?
Thank you,
Rajini
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Rajini Sivaram
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to start the vote
Hi all,
I would like to start the vote on KIP-188 that adds additional metrics to
support health checks for Kafka Ops. Details are here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-188+-+Add+new+metrics+to+support+health+checks
Thank you,
Rajini
21 matches
Mail list logo
