Woops! Thanks for the catch Lucas. Given this was just a typo, I don't
think this affects the voting.
Cheers,
Nick
On Tue, 14 May 2024 at 18:06, Lucas Brutschy <lbruts...@confluent.io.invalid>
wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> you are still referring to oldest-open-iterator-age-ms in the
> `Proposed Changes` section.
>
> Cheers,
> Lucas
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:00 PM Lucas Brutschy <lbruts...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nick!
> >
> > I agree, the age variant is a bit nicer since the semantics are very
> > clear from the name. If you'd rather go for the simple implementation,
> > how about calling it `oldest-iterator-open-since-ms`? I believe this
> > could be understood without docs. Either way, I think we should be
> > able to open the vote for this KIP because nobody raised any major /
> > blocking concerns.
> >
> > Looking forward to getting this voted on soon!
> >
> > Cheers
> > Lucas
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 5:23 PM Nick Telford <nick.telf...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Matthias,
> > >
> > > > For the oldest iterator metric, I would propose something simple like
> > > > `iterator-opened-ms` and it would just be the actual timestamp when
> the
> > > > iterator was opened. I don't think we need to compute the actual age,
> > > > but user can to this computation themselves?
> > >
> > > That works for me; it's easier to implement like that :-D I'm a little
> > > concerned that the name "iterator-opened-ms" may not be obvious enough
> > > without reading the docs.
> > >
> > > > If we think reporting the age instead of just the timestamp is
> better, I
> > > > would propose `iterator-max-age-ms`. I should be sufficient to call
> out
> > > > (as it's kinda "obvious" anyway) that the metric applies to open
> > > > iterator only.
> > >
> > > While I think it's preferable to record the timestamp, rather than the
> age,
> > > this does have the benefit of a more obvious metric name.
> > >
> > > > Nit: the KIP says it's a store-level metric, but I think it would be
> > > > good to say explicitly that it's recorded with DEBUG level only?
> > >
> > > Yes, I've already updated the KIP with this information in the table.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > > On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 at 10:53, Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The time window thing was just an idea. Happy to drop it.
> > > >
> > > > For the oldest iterator metric, I would propose something simple like
> > > > `iterator-opened-ms` and it would just be the actual timestamp when
> the
> > > > iterator was opened. I don't think we need to compute the actual age,
> > > > but user can to this computation themselves?
> > > >
> > > > If we think reporting the age instead of just the timestamp is
> better, I
> > > > would propose `iterator-max-age-ms`. I should be sufficient to call
> out
> > > > (as it's kinda "obvious" anyway) that the metric applies to open
> > > > iterator only.
> > > >
> > > > And yes, I was hoping that the code inside MetereXxxStore might
> already
> > > > be setup in a way that custom stores would inherit the iterator
> metrics
> > > > automatically -- I am just not sure, and left it as an exercise for
> > > > somebody to confirm :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nit: the KIP says it's a store-level metric, but I think it would be
> > > > good to say explicitly that it's recorded with DEBUG level only?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Matthias
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/28/24 2:52 PM, Nick Telford wrote:
> > > > > Quick addendum:
> > > > >
> > > > > My suggested metric "oldest-open-iterator-age-seconds" should be
> > > > > "oldest-open-iterator-age-ms". Milliseconds is obviously a better
> > > > > granularity for such a metric.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still accepting suggestions for a better name.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 13:41, Nick Telford <nick.telf...@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi everyone,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sorry for leaving this for so long. So much for "3 weeks until KIP
> > > > freeze"!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Sophie's comments:
> > > > >> 1. Would Matthias's suggestion of a separate metric tracking the
> age of
> > > > >> the oldest open iterator (within the tag set) satisfy this? That
> way we
> > > > can
> > > > >> keep iterator-duration-(avg|max) for closed iterators, which can
> be
> > > > useful
> > > > >> for performance debugging for iterators that don't leak. I'm not
> sure
> > > > what
> > > > >> we'd call this metric, maybe: "oldest-open-iterator-age-seconds"?
> Seems
> > > > >> like a mouthful.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2. You're right, it makes more sense to provide
> > > > >> iterator-duration-(avg|max). Honestly, I can't remember why I had
> > > > "total"
> > > > >> before, or why I was computing a rate-of-change over it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 3, 4, 5, 6. Agreed, I'll make all those changes as suggested.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 7. Combined with Matthias's point about RocksDB, I'm convinced
> that this
> > > > >> is the wrong KIP for these. I'll introduce the additional Rocks
> metrics
> > > > in
> > > > >> another KIP.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Matthias's comments:
> > > > >> A. Not sure about the time window. I'm pretty sure all existing
> avg/max
> > > > >> metrics are since the application was started? Any other
> suggestions
> > > > here
> > > > >> would be appreciated.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> B. Agreed. See point 1 above.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> C. Good point. My focus was very much on Rocks memory leaks when
> I wrote
> > > > >> the first draft. I can generalise it. My only concern is that it
> might
> > > > make
> > > > >> it more difficult to detect Rocks iterator leaks caused *within*
> our
> > > > >> high-level iterator, e.g. RocksJNI, RocksDB, RocksDBStore, etc.
> But we
> > > > >> could always provide a RocksDB-specific metric for this, as you
> > > > suggested.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> D. Hmm, we do already have MeteredKeyValueIterator, which
> automatically
> > > > >> wraps the iterator from inner-stores of MeteredKeyValueStore. If
> we
> > > > >> implemented these metrics there, then custom stores would
> automatically
> > > > >> gain the functionality, right? This seems like a pretty logical
> place to
> > > > >> implement these metrics, since MeteredKeyValueStore is all about
> adding
> > > > >> metrics to state stores.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> I imagine the best way to implement this would be to do so at the
> > > > >>> high-level iterator rather than implementing it separately for
> each
> > > > >>> specific iterator implementation for every store type.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sophie, does MeteredKeyValueIterator fit with your recommendation?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks for your thoughts everyone, I'll update the KIP now.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Nick
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 03:37, Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > > sop...@responsive.dev>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> About your last two points: I completely agree that we should
> try to
> > > > >>> make this independent of RocksDB, and should probably adopt a
> > > > >>> general philosophy of being store-implementation agnostic unless
> > > > >>> there is good reason to focus on a particular store type: eg if
> it was
> > > > >>> only possible to implement for certain stores, or only made
> sense in
> > > > >>> the context of a certain store type but not necessarily stores in
> > > > general.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> While leaking memory due to unclosed iterators on RocksDB stores
> is
> > > > >>> certainly the most common issue, I think Matthias sufficiently
> > > > >>> demonstrated that the problem of leaking iterators is not
> actually
> > > > >>> unique to RocksDB, and we should consider including in-memory
> > > > >>> stores at the very least. I also think that at this point, we
> may as
> > > > well
> > > > >>> just implement the metrics for *all* store types, whether
> rocksdb or
> > > > >>> in-memory or custom. Not just because it probably applies to all
> > > > >>> store types (leaking iterators are rarely a good thing!) but
> because
> > > > >>> I imagine the best way to implement this would be to do so at the
> > > > >>> high-level iterator rather than implementing it separately for
> each
> > > > >>> specific iterator implementation for every store type.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> That said, I haven't thought all that carefully about the
> > > > implementation
> > > > >>> yet -- it just strikes me as easiest to do at the top level of
> the
> > > > store
> > > > >>> hierarchy rather than at the bottom. My gut instinct may very
> well be
> > > > >>> wrong, but that's what it's saying
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 10:43 AM Matthias J. Sax <
> mj...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Seems I am late to this party. Can we pick this up again aiming
> for
> > > > 3.8
> > > > >>>> release? I think it would be a great addition. Few comments:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> - I think it does make sense to report `iterator-duration-avg`
> and
> > > > >>>> `iterator-duration-max` for all *closed* iterators -- it just
> seems to
> > > > >>>> be a useful metric (wondering if this would be _overall_ or
> bounded to
> > > > >>>> some time window?)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> - About the duration iterators are currently open, I believe
> the only
> > > > >>>> useful way is to report the "oldest iterator", ie, the smallest
> > > > iterator
> > > > >>>> open-time, of all currently open-iterator? We all agree that in
> > > > general,
> > > > >>>> leaking iterator would bump the count metric, and if there is a
> few
> > > > ones
> > > > >>>> which are not closed and open for a long time, it seem
> sufficient to
> > > > >>>> detect the single oldest one for alerting purpose?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> - What I don't like about the KIP is it focus on RocksDB. I
> don't
> > > > think
> > > > >>>> we should build on the internal RocksDB counters as proposed (I
> guess,
> > > > >>>> we could still expose them, similar to other RocksDB metrics
> which we
> > > > >>>> expose already). However, for this new metric, we should track
> it
> > > > >>>> ourselves and thus make it independent of RocksDB -- in the
> end, an
> > > > >>>> in-memory store could also leak memory (and kill a JVM with an
> > > > >>>> out-of-memory error) and we should be able to track it.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> - Not sure if we would like to add support for custom stores,
> to allow
> > > > >>>> them to register their iterators with this metric? Or would
> this not
> > > > be
> > > > >>>> necessary, because custom stores could just register a custom
> metric
> > > > >>>> about it to begin with?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> -Matthias
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On 10/25/23 4:41 PM, Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> If we used "iterator-duration-max", for
> > > > >>>>>> example, would it not be confusing that it includes Iterators
> that
> > > > >>> are
> > > > >>>>>> still open, and therefore the duration is not yet known?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> 1. Ah, I think I understand your concern better now -- I
> totally
> > > > agree
> > > > >>>> that
> > > > >>>>> a
> > > > >>>>> "iterator-duration-max" metric would be
> confusing/misleading. I
> > > > was
> > > > >>>>> thinking about it a bit differently, something more akin to the
> > > > >>>>> "last-rebalance-seconds-ago" consumer metric. As the name
> suggests,
> > > > >>>>> that basically just tracks how long the consumer has gone
> without
> > > > >>>>> rebalancing -- it doesn't purport to represent the actual
> duration
> > > > >>>> between
> > > > >>>>> rebalances, just the current time since the last one. The
> hard part
> > > > >>> is
> > > > >>>>> really
> > > > >>>>> in choosing a name that reflects this -- maybe you have some
> better
> > > > >>> ideas
> > > > >>>>> but off the top of my head, perhaps something like
> > > > >>>> "iterator-lifetime-max"?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> 2. I'm not quite sure how to interpret the
> "iterator-duration-total"
> > > > >>>> metric
> > > > >>>>> -- what exactly does it mean to add up all the iterator
> durations?
> > > > For
> > > > >>>>> some context, while this is not a hard-and-fast rule, in
> general
> > > > >>> you'll
> > > > >>>>> find that Kafka/Streams metrics tend to come in pairs of
> avg/max or
> > > > >>>>> rate/total. Something that you might measure the avg for
> usually is
> > > > >>>>> also useful to measure the max, whereas a total metric is
> probably
> > > > >>>>> also useful as a rate but not so much as an avg. I actually
> think
> > > > this
> > > > >>>>> is part of why it feels like it makes so much sense to include
> a
> > > > "max"
> > > > >>>>> version of this metric, as Lucas suggested, even if the name of
> > > > >>>>> "iterator-duration-max" feels misleading. Ultimately the
> metric names
> > > > >>>>> are up to you, but for this reason, I would personally
> advocate for
> > > > >>>>> just going with an "iterator-duration-avg" and
> > > > "iterator-duration-max"
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I did see your example in which you mention one could monitor
> the
> > > > >>>>> rate of change of the "-total" metric. While this does make
> sense to
> > > > >>>>> me, if the only way to interpret a metric is by computing
> another
> > > > >>>>> function over it, then why not just make that computation the
> metric
> > > > >>>>> and cut out the middle man? And in this case, to me at least,
> it
> > > > feels
> > > > >>>>> much easier to understand a metric like
> "iterator-duration-max" vs
> > > > >>>>> something like "iterator-duration-total-rate"
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> 3. By the way, can you add another column to the table with
> the new
> > > > >>>> metrics
> > > > >>>>> that lists the recording level? My suggestion would be to put
> the
> > > > >>>>> "number-open-iterators" at INFO and the other two at DEBUG. See
> > > > >>>>> the following for my reasoning behind this recommendation
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> 4. I would change the "Type" entry for the
> "number-open-iterators"
> > > > >>> from
> > > > >>>>> "Value" to "Gauge". This helps justify the "INFO" level for
> this
> > > > >>> metric,
> > > > >>>>> since unlike the other metrics which are "Measurables", the
> current
> > > > >>>>> timestamp won't need to be retrieved on each recording
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> 5. Can you list the tags that would be associated with each of
> these
> > > > >>>>> metrics (either in the table, or separately above/below if
> they will
> > > > >>> be
> > > > >>>>> the same for all)
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> 6. Do you have a strong preference for the name
> > > > >>> "number-open-iterators"
> > > > >>>>> or would you be alright in shortening this to
> "num-open-iterators"?
> > > > >>> The
> > > > >>>>> latter is more in line with the naming scheme used elsewhere
> in Kafka
> > > > >>>>> for similar kinds of metrics, and a shorter name is always
> nice.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> 7. With respect to the rocksdb cache metrics, those sound
> useful but
> > > > >>>>> if it was me, I would probably save them for a separate KIP
> mainly
> > > > >>> just
> > > > >>>>> because the KIP freeze deadline is in a few weeks, and I
> wouldn't
> > > > want
> > > > >>>>> to end up blocking all the new metrics just because there was
> ongoing
> > > > >>>>> debate about a subset of them. That said, you do have 3 full
> weeks,
> > > > so
> > > > >>>>> I would hope that you could get both sets of metrics agreed
> upon in
> > > > >>>>> that timeframe!
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 6:35 AM Nick Telford <
> nick.telf...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I don't really have a problem with adding such a metric, I'm
> just
> > > > not
> > > > >>>>>> entirely sure how it would work. If we used
> "iterator-duration-max",
> > > > >>> for
> > > > >>>>>> example, would it not be confusing that it includes Iterators
> that
> > > > >>> are
> > > > >>>>>> still open, and therefore the duration is not yet known? When
> > > > >>> graphing
> > > > >>>> that
> > > > >>>>>> over time, I suspect it would be difficult to understand.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> 3.
> > > > >>>>>> FWIW, this would still be picked up by "open-iterators",
> since that
> > > > >>>> metric
> > > > >>>>>> is only decremented when Iterator#close is called (via the
> > > > >>>>>> ManagedKeyValueIterator#onClose hook).
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I'm actually considering expanding the scope of this KIP
> slightly to
> > > > >>>>>> include improved Block Cache metrics, as my own memory leak
> > > > >>>> investigations
> > > > >>>>>> have trended in that direction. Do you think the following
> metrics
> > > > >>>> should
> > > > >>>>>> be included in this KIP, or should I create a new KIP?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> - block-cache-index-usage (number of bytes occupied by
> index
> > > > >>> blocks)
> > > > >>>>>> - block-cache-filter-usage (number of bytes occupied by
> filter
> > > > >>>> blocks)
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>> Nick
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 07:09, Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > > >>>> sop...@responsive.dev>
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I actually think we could implement Lucas' suggestion pretty
> easily
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>>>>>> without too much additional effort. We have full control
> over the
> > > > >>>>>> iterator
> > > > >>>>>>> that is returned by the various range queries, so it would
> be easy
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>>>> register a gauge metric for how long it has been since the
> iterator
> > > > >>> was
> > > > >>>>>>> created. Then we just deregister the metric when the
> iterator is
> > > > >>>> closed.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> With respect to how useful this metric would be, both Nick
> and
> > > > Lucas
> > > > >>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>> made good points: I would agree that in general, leaking
> iterators
> > > > >>>> would
> > > > >>>>>>> mean an ever-increasing iterator count that should be
> possible to
> > > > >>> spot
> > > > >>>>>>> without this. However, a few things to consider:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> 1. it's really easy to set up an alert based on some maximum
> > > > >>> threshold
> > > > >>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>> how long an iterator should remain open for. It's relatively
> more
> > > > >>>> tricky
> > > > >>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>> set up alerts based on the current count of open iterators
> and how
> > > > >>> it
> > > > >>>>>>> changes over time.
> > > > >>>>>>> 2. As Lucas mentioned, it only takes a few iterators to
> wreak havoc
> > > > >>> in
> > > > >>>>>>> extreme cases. Sometimes more advanced applications end up
> with
> > > > >>> just a
> > > > >>>>>> few
> > > > >>>>>>> leaking iterators despite closing the majority of them. I've
> seen
> > > > >>> this
> > > > >>>>>>> happen just once personally, but it was driving everyone
> crazy
> > > > >>> until we
> > > > >>>>>>> figured it out.
> > > > >>>>>>> 3. A metric for how long the iterator has been open would
> help to
> > > > >>>>>> identify
> > > > >>>>>>> hanging iterators due to some logic where the iterator is
> properly
> > > > >>>> closed
> > > > >>>>>>> but for whatever reason just isn't being advanced to the
> end, and
> > > > >>> thus
> > > > >>>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>> reached the iterator#close line of the user code. This case
> seems
> > > > >>>>>> difficult
> > > > >>>>>>> to spot without the specific metric for iterator lifetime
> > > > >>>>>>> 4. Lastly, I think you could argue that all of the above are
> fairly
> > > > >>>>>>> advanced use cases, but this seems like a fairly advanced
> feature
> > > > >>>>>> already,
> > > > >>>>>>> so it doesn't seem unreasonable to try and cover all the
> bases.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> All that said, my philosophy is that the KIP author gets the
> final
> > > > >>> word
> > > > >>>>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>> what to pull into scope as long as the proposal isn't harming
> > > > anyone
> > > > >>>>>>> without the extra feature/changes. So it's up to you Nick
> -- just
> > > > >>>> wanted
> > > > >>>>>>> to add some context on how it could work, and why it would be
> > > > >>> helpful
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP!
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 7:04 AM Lucas Brutschy
> > > > >>>>>>> <lbruts...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Hi Nick,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I did not think in detail about how to implement it, just
> about
> > > > >>> what
> > > > >>>>>>>> metrics would be nice to have. You are right, we'd have to
> > > > >>>>>>>> register/deregister the iterators during open/close. This
> would be
> > > > >>>>>>>> more complicated to implement than the other metrics, but I
> do not
> > > > >>> see
> > > > >>>>>>>> a fundamental problem with it.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> As far as I understand, even a low number of leaked
> iterators can
> > > > >>> hurt
> > > > >>>>>>>> RocksDB compaction significantly. So we may even want to
> detect if
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> iterators are opened by one-time / rare queries against the
> state
> > > > >>>>>>>> store.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> But, as I said, that would be an addition and not a change
> of the
> > > > >>>>>>>> current contents of the KIP, so I'd support the KIP moving
> forward
> > > > >>>>>>>> even without this extension.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Cheers, Lucas
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 3:45 PM Nick Telford <
> > > > >>> nick.telf...@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Lucas,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hmm, I'm not sure how we could reliably identify such
> leaked
> > > > >>>>>> Iterators.
> > > > >>>>>>>> If
> > > > >>>>>>>>> we tried to include open iterators when calculating
> > > > >>>>>> iterator-duration,
> > > > >>>>>>>> we'd
> > > > >>>>>>>>> need some kind of registry of all the open iterator
> creation
> > > > >>>>>>> timestamps,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> wouldn't we?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> In general, if you have a leaky Iterator, it should
> manifest as a
> > > > >>>>>>>>> persistently climbing "open-iterators" metric, even on a
> busy
> > > > >>> node,
> > > > >>>>>>>> because
> > > > >>>>>>>>> each time that Iterator is used, it will leak another one.
> So
> > > > >>> even in
> > > > >>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>> presence of many non-leaky Iterators on a busy instance,
> the
> > > > >>> metric
> > > > >>>>>>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>>> still consistently climb.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Nick
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 14:24, Lucas Brutschy <
> > > > >>> lbruts...@confluent.io
> > > > >>>>>>>> .invalid>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Nick!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> thanks for the KIP! I think this could be quite useful,
> given
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> problems that we had with leaks due to RocksDB resources
> not
> > > > >>> being
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> closed.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't have any pressing issues why we can't accept it
> like it
> > > > >>> is,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> just one minor point for discussion: would it also make
> sense to
> > > > >>>>>> make
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> it possible to identify a few very long-running / leaked
> > > > >>>>>> iterators? I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> can imagine on a busy node, it would be hard to spot that
> 1% of
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> iterators never close when looking only at closed
> iterator or
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> number of iterators. But it could still be good to
> identify
> > > > those
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> leaks early. One option would be to add
> `iterator-duration-max`
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> take open iterators into account when computing the
> metric.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Lucas
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:50 PM Nick Telford <
> > > > >>>>>> nick.telf...@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Colt,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I kept the details out of the KIP, because KIPs generally
> > > > >>>>>> document
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> high-level design, but the way I'm doing it is like this:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> final ManagedKeyValueIterator<Bytes, byte[]>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rocksDbPrefixSeekIterator = cf.prefixScan(accessor,
> > > > >>> prefixBytes);
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> --> final long startedAt = System.nanoTime();
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> openIterators.add(rocksDbPrefixSeekIterator);
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> rocksDbPrefixSeekIterator.onClose(() -> {
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -->
> > > > >>>>>>> metricsRecorder.recordIteratorDuration(System.nanoTime()
> > > > >>>>>>>> -
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> startedAt);
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> openIterators.remove(rocksDbPrefixSeekIterator);
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> });
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The lines with the arrow are the new code. This pattern
> is
> > > > >>>>>> repeated
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> throughout RocksDBStore, wherever a new RocksDbIterator
> is
> > > > >>>>>> created.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Nick
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 at 12:32, Colt McNealy <
> c...@littlehorse.io
> > > > >
> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the KIP, Nick!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> This would be highly useful for many reasons. Much more
> sane
> > > > >>>>>> than
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> checking
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> for leaked iterators by profiling memory usage while
> running
> > > > >>>>>>> 100's
> > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> thousands of range scans via interactive queries (:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> One small question:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The iterator-duration metrics will be updated whenever
> an
> > > > >>>>>>>> Iterator's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> close() method is called
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Does the Iterator have its own "createdAt()" or
> equivalent
> > > > >>>>>> field,
> > > > >>>>>>>> or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> do we
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> need to keep track of the Iterator's start time upon
> creation?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Colt McNealy
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *Founder, LittleHorse.dev*
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 9:07 AM Nick Telford <
> > > > >>>>>>>> nick.telf...@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> KIP-989 is a small Kafka Streams KIP to add a few new
> metrics
> > > > >>>>>>>> around
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> creation and use of RocksDB Iterators, to aid users in
> > > > >>>>>>>> identifying
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Iterator leaks" that could cause applications to leak
> native
> > > > >>>>>>>> memory.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know what you think!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-989%3A+RocksDB+Iterator+Metrics
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> P.S. I'm not too sure about the formatting of the "New
> > > > >>>>>> Metrics"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> table,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> any
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> advice there would be appreciated.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nick
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
>
