Hi, Xavier,
I think the per topic metric is more useful for measuring the traffic from
the clients. For internal replication, perhaps the aggregate value is
enough.
Thanks,
Jun
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Xavier Léauté wrote:
> Any reason we are not keeping the per-topic breakdown for int
Thanks for the KIP, Jun
We're constantly reminded of this inconsistency when we look at the
traffic on the dashboards !
--
Edoardo Comar
IBM MessageHub
eco...@uk.ibm.com
IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
IBM United Kingdom Limited Registered in Eng
Any reason we are not keeping the per-topic breakdown for inter-broker
traffic?
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:52 PM Onur Karaman
wrote:
> Looks good. Thanks!
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Roger Hoover
> wrote:
>
> > Very helpful. Thank you, Jun.
> >
> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Guozha
Looks good. Thanks!
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Roger Hoover wrote:
> Very helpful. Thank you, Jun.
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
>
> > Jun,
> >
> > Thanks for the KIP, LGTM.
> >
> > Guozhang
> >
> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> >
> > > T
Very helpful. Thank you, Jun.
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Jun,
>
> Thanks for the KIP, LGTM.
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
>
> > Thanks Jun, looks good to me.
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Jun Rao wrote
Jun,
Thanks for the KIP, LGTM.
Guozhang
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Thanks Jun, looks good to me.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Jun Rao wrote:
>
> > Hi, Ismael,
> >
> > Good point. Updated the KIP with ReplicationBytesInPerSec.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
>
Thanks Jun, looks good to me.
Ismael
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Jun Rao wrote:
> Hi, Ismael,
>
> Good point. Updated the KIP with ReplicationBytesInPerSec.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jun
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the KIP, Jun. Good to fix this inconsist
Hi, Ismael,
Good point. Updated the KIP with ReplicationBytesInPerSec.
Thanks,
Jun
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP, Jun. Good to fix this inconsistency. Do I understand
> correctly that we are introducing ReplicationBytesOutPerSec, but not
> Replication
Thanks for the KIP, Jun. Good to fix this inconsistency. Do I understand
correctly that we are introducing ReplicationBytesOutPerSec, but not
ReplicationBytesInPerSec?
If so, what's the reason?
Ismael
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Jun Rao wrote:
> Hi, Everyone,
>
> We created "KIP-153 : Incl
