wenbingshen commented on PR #4179: URL: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/4179#issuecomment-1905226107
> > Refer to the release note: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/releases/tag/release-4.16.0 Can we use `bookkeeper_server_ADD_ENTRY` and `bookkeeper_server_READ_ENTRY` instead? > > @hangc0276 These metrics have different meanings. When we use the V2 protocol, `ADD_ENTRY_REQUEST` : Indicates the execution time from when the request enters the write queue to when the response to the production request is sent. `ADD_ENTRY` : Indicates the execution time from the beginning of request processing to the completion of writing to the journal `WRITE_THREAD_QUEUED_LATENCY` : Indicates the waiting time between the production request entering the queue and starting to be processed. > > Based on the above indicators, we use: The time it takes to send a production response to the client on network IO: `ADD_ENTRY_REQUEST - ADD_ENTRY - WRITE_THREAD_QUEUED_LATENCY` @hangc0276 `bookkeeper_server_READ_ENTRY_REQUEST` still works fine in 4.16.x, I noticed that batch read support will be released in 4.17.x, I don't know if `READ_ENTRY_REQUEST` can be supported under batch read, but send read response has a blocking send api, I think this can effectively reflecting the network IO situation can help us analyze whether the read request delay occurs at the bookie service level or the network or broker side. After thinking about it again, I think `bookkeeper_server_ADD_ENTRY_REQUEST` can be replaced by `bookkeeper_server_ADD_ENTRY`. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@bookkeeper.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
