We will be using KM for quota'ing on the new client-id-specific
metrics.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 08:44:44PM +0000, Jiangjie Qin wrote:
> Thanks a lot for the summary, Gwen!
> About the Quota, does that mean the first quota implementation will be
> based on YM? I¹m thinking can we pursue a quota solution that has a loose
> coupling with metrics interfaces? Like something operating system does for
> FUSE, so we don¹t need to care about which underlying metric we use. In
> that case, we can implement the Quota base on KM and wrap YM to resemble
> KM. Quota management itself can also be extracted as a separate package in
> this case.
> 
> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> 
> On 3/31/15, 12:04 PM, "Gwen Shapira" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >Hi,
> >
> >Short notes from today's discussion for those who missed it.
> >Attendees, feel free to correct or add:
> >
> >KIP-4:
> >* Agreed to bump TopicMetadataRequest version, leave V0 with automatic
> >topic-creation and add warnings that we are deprecating the feature in
> >future releases.
> >* Agreed to document all API additions and how client developers will
> >use new API.
> >* Decided not to have the server parse regular expressions when listing
> >topics
> >
> >Quotas and Metrics:
> >* Quotas should use new KM metrics - those will be missing from
> >existing reporters
> >* Security requires re-using client classes in core and this will
> >bring more KM metrics
> >* We don¹t want to block security with metrics requirement
> >* So we can shim KM into YM for security
> >* After security we can start replacing everything
> >
> >KIP-5:
> >Shaping up to be a very large feature. Decided that Quotas won¹t need
> >to wait on this. Waiting for a more in-depth design doc
> >
> >KIP-13:
> >- Depends on KIP-4 for admin side
> >
> >KIP-11:
> >- Want to get the network client reuse done first - Gwen needs to
> >check if its possible to share
> >- blocked on generic channel implementation
> >
> >Others:
> >* Agreed to use KIP call to discuss JIRAs blocked on reviews
> >* New replica lag is almost ready!
> >
> >Gwen
> 

Reply via email to