Hi all,



I'd like to start a discussion on adding JMX metrics to the 
iceberg-kafka-connect sink

connector. Implementation is up as PR #17025 and has been through review; the 
reviewers

asked that the metric surface itself get wider visibility before it merges, 
since JMX

attribute names become a public operational contract with no deprecation path 
once released.




Proposal: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/issues/18007




Briefly: the connector is close to unobservable today. There are no metrics for 
coordinator

commit latency, no way to distinguish a timeout-driven partial commit from a 
healthy full

commit, and no signal for growth of the coordinator's in-memory commit buffers 
— which is

the leading indicator of the degradation described in issue #16389. The PR adds 
timers for

the commit path and control-message handling, counters for emitted 
control-topic events, and

gauges for the coordinator's buffers, registered under an 
`iceberg.kafka.connect` JMX domain.




I'd particularly like input on the naming and tagging decisions, which are the 
parts we

cannot change later without breaking operators' dashboards:




1. The JMX domain (`iceberg.kafka.connect`) and the `type=worker-metrics` /

   `type=coordinator-metrics` values.

2. Whether data files and delete files should be counted separately

   (`data-files-written` + `delete-files-written`, matching the 
`added-data-files` /

   `added-delete-files` split in snapshot summaries) or together under a

   `content-files-written` name.

3. `start-commit-total` counts *successfully sent* START_COMMIT events rather 
than commit

   initiations — whether the name should say so.

4. Whether the `commit-mode=full|partial` tag should apply to all 
commit-related metrics

   rather than only the commit timer.

5. Whether durations should be published as cumulative total+count pairs (the 
proposal's

   choice — Kafka's sampled Avg/Max read NaN for most of a 300s commit 
interval) or some

   other representation.




Details and the alternatives considered for each are in the proposal. Feedback 
welcome, on

the mailing list or on the proposal issue.




Thanks,
Henry

Reply via email to