Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Eno Thereska]

Thanks Joel, I'll address these tomorrow, no problem.

Eno
> On 9 Jan 2017, at 22:04, Joel Koshy  wrote:
> 
> Didn't get a chance to review this earlier, but this LGTM. Minor comments:
> - The current name is fine, but I would have preferred calling it
> RecordingLevel to RecordLevel - first thing that comes to my mind with
> RecordLevel is Kafka records.
> - Under future work: it may be useful to allow specifying different
> recording levels for different hierarchies of sensors (similar to logging
> levels for different loggers)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joel
> 
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Ismael Juma  wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Eno, sounds good to me. This is indeed what I was suggesting for the
>> initial release. Extending the `JmxReporter` to use the additional
>> information is something that can be done later, as you said.
>> 
>> Ismael
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Eno Thereska 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> To clarify an earlier point Ismael made, MetricReporter implementations
>>> have access to the record level via KafkaMetric.config().recordLevel()
>>> and can also retrieve the active config for the record level via the
>>> configure() method. However, the built-in JmxReporter will not use that
>>> information in the initial release. I've updated the KIP to reflect that.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Eno
>>> 
 On 6 Jan 2017, at 09:47, Eno Thereska  wrote:
 
 After considering the changes needed for not registering sensors at
>> all,
>>> coupled with the objective that Jay mentioned to leave open the
>> possibility
>>> of changing the recording level at runtime, we decided that the current
>> way
>>> we have approached the solution is the best way to go. The KIP focuses on
>>> the main problem we have, which is the overhead of computing metrics. It
>>> allows for a subsequent JIRA to have a way to change the levels at
>> runtime
>>> via JMX. It also allows for a subsequent JIRA to provide more tags to the
>>> metrics reporter as Ismael had suggested (e.g., "debug", "info").
 
 I've adjusted the KIP to reflect the above.
 
 Thanks
 Eno
 
> On 5 Jan 2017, at 22:14, Eno Thereska > >> eno.there...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Jay, will fix the motivation. We have a microbenchmark and perf
>>> graph in the PR:
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1446#issuecomment-268106260 <
>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1446#issuecomment-268106260>
> 
> I'll need to think some more about point 3.
> 
> Thanks
> Eno
> 
>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 19:18, Jay Kreps >> j...@confluent.io>> wrote:
>> 
>> This is great! A couple of quick comments:
>> 
>>  1. It'd be good to make the motivation a bit more clear. I think
>> the
>>  motivation is "We want to have lots of partition/task/etc metrics
>>> but we're
>>  concerned about the performance impact so we want to disable them
>> by
>>  default." Currently the motivation section is more about the
>> proposed
>>  change and doesn't really make clear why.
>>  2. Do we have a microbenchmark that shows that the performance of
>> (1)
>>  enabled metrics, (2) disabled metrics, (3) no metrics? This would
>>> help
>>  build the case for needing this extra knob. Obviously if metrics
>> are
>>> cheap
>>  you would always just leave them enabled and not worry about it. I
>>> think
>>  there should be some cost because we are at least taking a lock
>>> during the
>>  recording but I'm not sure how material that is.
>>  3. One consideration in how this exposed: we always found the
>>> ability to
>>  dynamically change the logging level in JMX for log4j pretty
>> useful.
>>> I
>>  think if we want to leave the door open to add this ability to
>> enable
>>  metrics at runtime it may have some impact on the decision around
>> how
>>  metrics are registered/reported.
>> 
>> -Jay
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Guozhang Wang >> > wrote:
>> 
>>> I thought about "not registering at all" and left a comment on the
>> PR
>>> as
>>> well regarding this idea. My concern is that it may be not very
>>> straight-forward to implement though via the MetricsReporter
>>> interface, if
>>> Eno and Aarti has a good approach to tackle it I would love it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Guozhang
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Eno Thereska <
>> eno.there...@gmail.com
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Updated KIP for 1. Waiting to hear from Guozhang on 2 and then we
>> can
 proceed.
 
 Thanks
 Eno
> On 5 Jan 2017, at 12:27, Ismael Juma >> ism...@juma.me.uk>> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Eno. It would be good to update the KIP as well with
>> regards
>>> to
>>> 1.
> 
> About 2, I am not sure how adding a field could break existing
>>> tools.
> Having said that, your suggestion not t

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Joel Koshy]

Didn't get a chance to review this earlier, but this LGTM. Minor comments:
- The current name is fine, but I would have preferred calling it
RecordingLevel to RecordLevel - first thing that comes to my mind with
RecordLevel is Kafka records.
- Under future work: it may be useful to allow specifying different
recording levels for different hierarchies of sensors (similar to logging
levels for different loggers)

Thanks,

Joel

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Ismael Juma  wrote:

> Thanks Eno, sounds good to me. This is indeed what I was suggesting for the
> initial release. Extending the `JmxReporter` to use the additional
> information is something that can be done later, as you said.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Eno Thereska 
> wrote:
>
> > To clarify an earlier point Ismael made, MetricReporter implementations
> > have access to the record level via KafkaMetric.config().recordLevel()
> > and can also retrieve the active config for the record level via the
> > configure() method. However, the built-in JmxReporter will not use that
> > information in the initial release. I've updated the KIP to reflect that.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Eno
> >
> > > On 6 Jan 2017, at 09:47, Eno Thereska  wrote:
> > >
> > > After considering the changes needed for not registering sensors at
> all,
> > coupled with the objective that Jay mentioned to leave open the
> possibility
> > of changing the recording level at runtime, we decided that the current
> way
> > we have approached the solution is the best way to go. The KIP focuses on
> > the main problem we have, which is the overhead of computing metrics. It
> > allows for a subsequent JIRA to have a way to change the levels at
> runtime
> > via JMX. It also allows for a subsequent JIRA to provide more tags to the
> > metrics reporter as Ismael had suggested (e.g., "debug", "info").
> > >
> > > I've adjusted the KIP to reflect the above.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Eno
> > >
> > >> On 5 Jan 2017, at 22:14, Eno Thereska   > eno.there...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Jay, will fix the motivation. We have a microbenchmark and perf
> > graph in the PR:
> > >> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1446#issuecomment-268106260 <
> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1446#issuecomment-268106260>
> > >>
> > >> I'll need to think some more about point 3.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >> Eno
> > >>
> > >>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 19:18, Jay Kreps  > j...@confluent.io>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> This is great! A couple of quick comments:
> > >>>
> > >>>   1. It'd be good to make the motivation a bit more clear. I think
> the
> > >>>   motivation is "We want to have lots of partition/task/etc metrics
> > but we're
> > >>>   concerned about the performance impact so we want to disable them
> by
> > >>>   default." Currently the motivation section is more about the
> proposed
> > >>>   change and doesn't really make clear why.
> > >>>   2. Do we have a microbenchmark that shows that the performance of
> (1)
> > >>>   enabled metrics, (2) disabled metrics, (3) no metrics? This would
> > help
> > >>>   build the case for needing this extra knob. Obviously if metrics
> are
> > cheap
> > >>>   you would always just leave them enabled and not worry about it. I
> > think
> > >>>   there should be some cost because we are at least taking a lock
> > during the
> > >>>   recording but I'm not sure how material that is.
> > >>>   3. One consideration in how this exposed: we always found the
> > ability to
> > >>>   dynamically change the logging level in JMX for log4j pretty
> useful.
> > I
> > >>>   think if we want to leave the door open to add this ability to
> enable
> > >>>   metrics at runtime it may have some impact on the decision around
> how
> > >>>   metrics are registered/reported.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Jay
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Guozhang Wang  > > wrote:
> > >>>
> >  I thought about "not registering at all" and left a comment on the
> PR
> > as
> >  well regarding this idea. My concern is that it may be not very
> >  straight-forward to implement though via the MetricsReporter
> > interface, if
> >  Eno and Aarti has a good approach to tackle it I would love it.
> > 
> > 
> >  Guozhang
> > 
> >  On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Eno Thereska <
> eno.there...@gmail.com
> > >
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > Updated KIP for 1. Waiting to hear from Guozhang on 2 and then we
> can
> > > proceed.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Eno
> > >> On 5 Jan 2017, at 12:27, Ismael Juma  > ism...@juma.me.uk>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Eno. It would be good to update the KIP as well with
> regards
> > to
> >  1.
> > >>
> > >> About 2, I am not sure how adding a field could break existing
> > tools.
> > >> Having said that, your suggestion not to register sensors at all
> if
> >  their
> > >> record level is below what is configured works 

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Ismael Juma]

Thanks Eno, sounds good to me. This is indeed what I was suggesting for the
initial release. Extending the `JmxReporter` to use the additional
information is something that can be done later, as you said.

Ismael

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Eno Thereska 
wrote:

> To clarify an earlier point Ismael made, MetricReporter implementations
> have access to the record level via KafkaMetric.config().recordLevel()
> and can also retrieve the active config for the record level via the
> configure() method. However, the built-in JmxReporter will not use that
> information in the initial release. I've updated the KIP to reflect that.
>
> Thanks
> Eno
>
> > On 6 Jan 2017, at 09:47, Eno Thereska  wrote:
> >
> > After considering the changes needed for not registering sensors at all,
> coupled with the objective that Jay mentioned to leave open the possibility
> of changing the recording level at runtime, we decided that the current way
> we have approached the solution is the best way to go. The KIP focuses on
> the main problem we have, which is the overhead of computing metrics. It
> allows for a subsequent JIRA to have a way to change the levels at runtime
> via JMX. It also allows for a subsequent JIRA to provide more tags to the
> metrics reporter as Ismael had suggested (e.g., "debug", "info").
> >
> > I've adjusted the KIP to reflect the above.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Eno
> >
> >> On 5 Jan 2017, at 22:14, Eno Thereska  eno.there...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Jay, will fix the motivation. We have a microbenchmark and perf
> graph in the PR:
> >> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1446#issuecomment-268106260 <
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1446#issuecomment-268106260>
> >>
> >> I'll need to think some more about point 3.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Eno
> >>
> >>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 19:18, Jay Kreps  j...@confluent.io>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This is great! A couple of quick comments:
> >>>
> >>>   1. It'd be good to make the motivation a bit more clear. I think the
> >>>   motivation is "We want to have lots of partition/task/etc metrics
> but we're
> >>>   concerned about the performance impact so we want to disable them by
> >>>   default." Currently the motivation section is more about the proposed
> >>>   change and doesn't really make clear why.
> >>>   2. Do we have a microbenchmark that shows that the performance of (1)
> >>>   enabled metrics, (2) disabled metrics, (3) no metrics? This would
> help
> >>>   build the case for needing this extra knob. Obviously if metrics are
> cheap
> >>>   you would always just leave them enabled and not worry about it. I
> think
> >>>   there should be some cost because we are at least taking a lock
> during the
> >>>   recording but I'm not sure how material that is.
> >>>   3. One consideration in how this exposed: we always found the
> ability to
> >>>   dynamically change the logging level in JMX for log4j pretty useful.
> I
> >>>   think if we want to leave the door open to add this ability to enable
> >>>   metrics at runtime it may have some impact on the decision around how
> >>>   metrics are registered/reported.
> >>>
> >>> -Jay
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Guozhang Wang  > wrote:
> >>>
>  I thought about "not registering at all" and left a comment on the PR
> as
>  well regarding this idea. My concern is that it may be not very
>  straight-forward to implement though via the MetricsReporter
> interface, if
>  Eno and Aarti has a good approach to tackle it I would love it.
> 
> 
>  Guozhang
> 
>  On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Eno Thereska  >
>  wrote:
> 
> > Updated KIP for 1. Waiting to hear from Guozhang on 2 and then we can
> > proceed.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Eno
> >> On 5 Jan 2017, at 12:27, Ismael Juma  ism...@juma.me.uk>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Eno. It would be good to update the KIP as well with regards
> to
>  1.
> >>
> >> About 2, I am not sure how adding a field could break existing
> tools.
> >> Having said that, your suggestion not to register sensors at all if
>  their
> >> record level is below what is configured works for me.
> >>
> >> Ismael
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Eno Thereska <
> eno.there...@gmail.com >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks Ismael. Already addressed 1. in the PR.
> >>>
> >>> As for 2. I'd prefer not adding extra info to the metrics
> reporters at
> >>> this point, since it might break existing tools out there (e.g.,
> if we
> > add
> >>> things like configured level). Existing tools might be expecting
> the
> > info
> >>> to be reported in a particular format.
> >>>
> >>> If the current way is confusing, I think the next best alternative
> is
>  to
> >>> not register sensors at all if their record level is below what is
> >>> config

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Eno Thereska]

To clarify an earlier point Ismael made, MetricReporter implementations have 
access to the record level via KafkaMetric.config().recordLevel() and can also 
retrieve the active config for the record level via the configure() method. 
However, the built-in JmxReporter will not use that information in the initial 
release. I've updated the KIP to reflect that.

Thanks
Eno

> On 6 Jan 2017, at 09:47, Eno Thereska  wrote:
> 
> After considering the changes needed for not registering sensors at all, 
> coupled with the objective that Jay mentioned to leave open the possibility 
> of changing the recording level at runtime, we decided that the current way 
> we have approached the solution is the best way to go. The KIP focuses on the 
> main problem we have, which is the overhead of computing metrics. It allows 
> for a subsequent JIRA to have a way to change the levels at runtime via JMX. 
> It also allows for a subsequent JIRA to provide more tags to the metrics 
> reporter as Ismael had suggested (e.g., "debug", "info").
> 
> I've adjusted the KIP to reflect the above.
> 
> Thanks
> Eno
> 
>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 22:14, Eno Thereska > > wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Jay, will fix the motivation. We have a microbenchmark and perf graph 
>> in the PR:
>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1446#issuecomment-268106260 
>> 
>> 
>> I'll need to think some more about point 3.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Eno
>> 
>>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 19:18, Jay Kreps >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is great! A couple of quick comments:
>>> 
>>>   1. It'd be good to make the motivation a bit more clear. I think the
>>>   motivation is "We want to have lots of partition/task/etc metrics but 
>>> we're
>>>   concerned about the performance impact so we want to disable them by
>>>   default." Currently the motivation section is more about the proposed
>>>   change and doesn't really make clear why.
>>>   2. Do we have a microbenchmark that shows that the performance of (1)
>>>   enabled metrics, (2) disabled metrics, (3) no metrics? This would help
>>>   build the case for needing this extra knob. Obviously if metrics are cheap
>>>   you would always just leave them enabled and not worry about it. I think
>>>   there should be some cost because we are at least taking a lock during the
>>>   recording but I'm not sure how material that is.
>>>   3. One consideration in how this exposed: we always found the ability to
>>>   dynamically change the logging level in JMX for log4j pretty useful. I
>>>   think if we want to leave the door open to add this ability to enable
>>>   metrics at runtime it may have some impact on the decision around how
>>>   metrics are registered/reported.
>>> 
>>> -Jay
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Guozhang Wang >> > wrote:
>>> 
 I thought about "not registering at all" and left a comment on the PR as
 well regarding this idea. My concern is that it may be not very
 straight-forward to implement though via the MetricsReporter interface, if
 Eno and Aarti has a good approach to tackle it I would love it.
 
 
 Guozhang
 
 On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Eno Thereska >>> >
 wrote:
 
> Updated KIP for 1. Waiting to hear from Guozhang on 2 and then we can
> proceed.
> 
> Thanks
> Eno
>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 12:27, Ismael Juma > > wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Eno. It would be good to update the KIP as well with regards to
 1.
>> 
>> About 2, I am not sure how adding a field could break existing tools.
>> Having said that, your suggestion not to register sensors at all if
 their
>> record level is below what is configured works for me.
>> 
>> Ismael
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Eno Thereska > >
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Ismael. Already addressed 1. in the PR.
>>> 
>>> As for 2. I'd prefer not adding extra info to the metrics reporters at
>>> this point, since it might break existing tools out there (e.g., if we
> add
>>> things like configured level). Existing tools might be expecting the
> info
>>> to be reported in a particular format.
>>> 
>>> If the current way is confusing, I think the next best alternative is
 to
>>> not register sensors at all if their record level is below what is
>>> configured. That way they don't show up at all. This will require some
> more
>>> code in Sensors.java to check at every step, but I think it's clean
 from
>>> the user's point of view.
>>> 
>>> Eno
>>> 
>>> 
 On 5 Jan 2017, at 11:23, Ismael Juma >>> > wrote:
 
 Thanks for the KIP, it seems like a good improvement. A couple of
>>> comments:

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Eno Thereska]

After considering the changes needed for not registering sensors at all, 
coupled with the objective that Jay mentioned to leave open the possibility of 
changing the recording level at runtime, we decided that the current way we 
have approached the solution is the best way to go. The KIP focuses on the main 
problem we have, which is the overhead of computing metrics. It allows for a 
subsequent JIRA to have a way to change the levels at runtime via JMX. It also 
allows for a subsequent JIRA to provide more tags to the metrics reporter as 
Ismael had suggested (e.g., "debug", "info").

I've adjusted the KIP to reflect the above.

Thanks
Eno

> On 5 Jan 2017, at 22:14, Eno Thereska  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Jay, will fix the motivation. We have a microbenchmark and perf graph 
> in the PR:
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1446#issuecomment-268106260 
> 
> 
> I'll need to think some more about point 3.
> 
> Thanks
> Eno
> 
>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 19:18, Jay Kreps > > wrote:
>> 
>> This is great! A couple of quick comments:
>> 
>>   1. It'd be good to make the motivation a bit more clear. I think the
>>   motivation is "We want to have lots of partition/task/etc metrics but we're
>>   concerned about the performance impact so we want to disable them by
>>   default." Currently the motivation section is more about the proposed
>>   change and doesn't really make clear why.
>>   2. Do we have a microbenchmark that shows that the performance of (1)
>>   enabled metrics, (2) disabled metrics, (3) no metrics? This would help
>>   build the case for needing this extra knob. Obviously if metrics are cheap
>>   you would always just leave them enabled and not worry about it. I think
>>   there should be some cost because we are at least taking a lock during the
>>   recording but I'm not sure how material that is.
>>   3. One consideration in how this exposed: we always found the ability to
>>   dynamically change the logging level in JMX for log4j pretty useful. I
>>   think if we want to leave the door open to add this ability to enable
>>   metrics at runtime it may have some impact on the decision around how
>>   metrics are registered/reported.
>> 
>> -Jay
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Guozhang Wang > > wrote:
>> 
>>> I thought about "not registering at all" and left a comment on the PR as
>>> well regarding this idea. My concern is that it may be not very
>>> straight-forward to implement though via the MetricsReporter interface, if
>>> Eno and Aarti has a good approach to tackle it I would love it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Guozhang
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Eno Thereska >> >
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Updated KIP for 1. Waiting to hear from Guozhang on 2 and then we can
 proceed.
 
 Thanks
 Eno
> On 5 Jan 2017, at 12:27, Ismael Juma  > wrote:
> 
> Thanks Eno. It would be good to update the KIP as well with regards to
>>> 1.
> 
> About 2, I am not sure how adding a field could break existing tools.
> Having said that, your suggestion not to register sensors at all if
>>> their
> record level is below what is configured works for me.
> 
> Ismael
> 
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Eno Thereska  >
> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Ismael. Already addressed 1. in the PR.
>> 
>> As for 2. I'd prefer not adding extra info to the metrics reporters at
>> this point, since it might break existing tools out there (e.g., if we
 add
>> things like configured level). Existing tools might be expecting the
 info
>> to be reported in a particular format.
>> 
>> If the current way is confusing, I think the next best alternative is
>>> to
>> not register sensors at all if their record level is below what is
>> configured. That way they don't show up at all. This will require some
 more
>> code in Sensors.java to check at every step, but I think it's clean
>>> from
>> the user's point of view.
>> 
>> Eno
>> 
>> 
>>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 11:23, Ismael Juma >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the KIP, it seems like a good improvement. A couple of
>> comments:
>>> 
>>> 1. As Jun asked in the PR, do we need a broker config as well? The
 broker
>>> uses Kafka Metrics for some metrics, but we probably don't have any
 debug
>>> sensors at the broker yet. Either way, it would be good to describe
>>> the
>>> thinking around this.
>>> 
>>> 2. The behaviour with regards to the metrics reporter could be
>> surprising.
>>> It would be good to elaborate a little more on this aspect. For
 example,
>>> maybe we want to expose the sensor level and the current configured
 level
>>> to metric reporters

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Eno Thereska]

Thanks Jay, will fix the motivation. We have a microbenchmark and perf graph in 
the PR:
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1446#issuecomment-268106260 


I'll need to think some more about point 3.

Thanks
Eno

> On 5 Jan 2017, at 19:18, Jay Kreps  wrote:
> 
> This is great! A couple of quick comments:
> 
>   1. It'd be good to make the motivation a bit more clear. I think the
>   motivation is "We want to have lots of partition/task/etc metrics but we're
>   concerned about the performance impact so we want to disable them by
>   default." Currently the motivation section is more about the proposed
>   change and doesn't really make clear why.
>   2. Do we have a microbenchmark that shows that the performance of (1)
>   enabled metrics, (2) disabled metrics, (3) no metrics? This would help
>   build the case for needing this extra knob. Obviously if metrics are cheap
>   you would always just leave them enabled and not worry about it. I think
>   there should be some cost because we are at least taking a lock during the
>   recording but I'm not sure how material that is.
>   3. One consideration in how this exposed: we always found the ability to
>   dynamically change the logging level in JMX for log4j pretty useful. I
>   think if we want to leave the door open to add this ability to enable
>   metrics at runtime it may have some impact on the decision around how
>   metrics are registered/reported.
> 
> -Jay
> 
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Guozhang Wang  wrote:
> 
>> I thought about "not registering at all" and left a comment on the PR as
>> well regarding this idea. My concern is that it may be not very
>> straight-forward to implement though via the MetricsReporter interface, if
>> Eno and Aarti has a good approach to tackle it I would love it.
>> 
>> 
>> Guozhang
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Eno Thereska 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Updated KIP for 1. Waiting to hear from Guozhang on 2 and then we can
>>> proceed.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Eno
 On 5 Jan 2017, at 12:27, Ismael Juma  wrote:
 
 Thanks Eno. It would be good to update the KIP as well with regards to
>> 1.
 
 About 2, I am not sure how adding a field could break existing tools.
 Having said that, your suggestion not to register sensors at all if
>> their
 record level is below what is configured works for me.
 
 Ismael
 
 On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Eno Thereska 
 wrote:
 
> Thanks Ismael. Already addressed 1. in the PR.
> 
> As for 2. I'd prefer not adding extra info to the metrics reporters at
> this point, since it might break existing tools out there (e.g., if we
>>> add
> things like configured level). Existing tools might be expecting the
>>> info
> to be reported in a particular format.
> 
> If the current way is confusing, I think the next best alternative is
>> to
> not register sensors at all if their record level is below what is
> configured. That way they don't show up at all. This will require some
>>> more
> code in Sensors.java to check at every step, but I think it's clean
>> from
> the user's point of view.
> 
> Eno
> 
> 
>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 11:23, Ismael Juma  wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for the KIP, it seems like a good improvement. A couple of
> comments:
>> 
>> 1. As Jun asked in the PR, do we need a broker config as well? The
>>> broker
>> uses Kafka Metrics for some metrics, but we probably don't have any
>>> debug
>> sensors at the broker yet. Either way, it would be good to describe
>> the
>> thinking around this.
>> 
>> 2. The behaviour with regards to the metrics reporter could be
> surprising.
>> It would be good to elaborate a little more on this aspect. For
>>> example,
>> maybe we want to expose the sensor level and the current configured
>>> level
>> to metric reporters. That could then be used to build the debug/info
>> dashboard that Eno mentioned (while making it clear that some metrics
>> exist, but are not currently being recorded).
>> 
>> Ismael
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Eno Thereska <
>> eno.there...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Correct on 2. Guozhang: the sensor will be registered and polled by
>> a
>>> reporter, but the metrics associated with it will not be updated.
>>> 
>>> That would allow a user to have, for example, a debug dashboard and
>> an
>>> info dashboard.
>>> 
>>> Updated KIP to make this clear.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Eno
>>> 
>>> 
 On 4 Jan 2017, at 18:00, Aarti Gupta 
>> wrote:
 
 Thanks for the review, Guozhang,
 
 Addressed 2 out of the three comments,
 
 1. Fixed and updated KIP (swapped code variable name
 METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG with config name metrics.record.level)
 
>

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Eno Thereska]

Guozhang,

I was thinking to do this in Sensor.java, and not touch the MetricsReporter 
interface. Basically I'd go for not adding a KafkaMetric at all with this 
approach. But perhaps I'm missing something.

Thanks
Eno
> On 5 Jan 2017, at 17:59, Guozhang Wang  wrote:
> 
> I thought about "not registering at all" and left a comment on the PR as
> well regarding this idea. My concern is that it may be not very
> straight-forward to implement though via the MetricsReporter interface, if
> Eno and Aarti has a good approach to tackle it I would love it.
> 
> 
> Guozhang
> 
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Eno Thereska  wrote:
> 
>> Updated KIP for 1. Waiting to hear from Guozhang on 2 and then we can
>> proceed.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Eno
>>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 12:27, Ismael Juma  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks Eno. It would be good to update the KIP as well with regards to 1.
>>> 
>>> About 2, I am not sure how adding a field could break existing tools.
>>> Having said that, your suggestion not to register sensors at all if their
>>> record level is below what is configured works for me.
>>> 
>>> Ismael
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Eno Thereska 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Thanks Ismael. Already addressed 1. in the PR.
 
 As for 2. I'd prefer not adding extra info to the metrics reporters at
 this point, since it might break existing tools out there (e.g., if we
>> add
 things like configured level). Existing tools might be expecting the
>> info
 to be reported in a particular format.
 
 If the current way is confusing, I think the next best alternative is to
 not register sensors at all if their record level is below what is
 configured. That way they don't show up at all. This will require some
>> more
 code in Sensors.java to check at every step, but I think it's clean from
 the user's point of view.
 
 Eno
 
 
> On 5 Jan 2017, at 11:23, Ismael Juma  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the KIP, it seems like a good improvement. A couple of
 comments:
> 
> 1. As Jun asked in the PR, do we need a broker config as well? The
>> broker
> uses Kafka Metrics for some metrics, but we probably don't have any
>> debug
> sensors at the broker yet. Either way, it would be good to describe the
> thinking around this.
> 
> 2. The behaviour with regards to the metrics reporter could be
 surprising.
> It would be good to elaborate a little more on this aspect. For
>> example,
> maybe we want to expose the sensor level and the current configured
>> level
> to metric reporters. That could then be used to build the debug/info
> dashboard that Eno mentioned (while making it clear that some metrics
> exist, but are not currently being recorded).
> 
> Ismael
> 
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Eno Thereska 
> wrote:
> 
>> Correct on 2. Guozhang: the sensor will be registered and polled by a
>> reporter, but the metrics associated with it will not be updated.
>> 
>> That would allow a user to have, for example, a debug dashboard and an
>> info dashboard.
>> 
>> Updated KIP to make this clear.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Eno
>> 
>> 
>>> On 4 Jan 2017, at 18:00, Aarti Gupta  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the review, Guozhang,
>>> 
>>> Addressed 2 out of the three comments,
>>> 
>>> 1. Fixed and updated KIP (swapped code variable name
>>> METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG with config name metrics.record.level)
>>> 
>>> 3. >>Could you elaborate on the "shouldRecord()" function, e.g. which
>> class
>>> it will be added to? Does it contain any parameters?
>>> 
>>> Added more details on shouldRecord()  on the KIP
>>> 
>>> In Sensor.java the shouldRecord() method is used to compare the value
 of
>>> metric record level in the consumer config and the RecordLevel
 associated
>>> with the sensor, to determine if metrics should recorded.
>>> 
>>> From Sensor.java
>>> 
>>> /**
>>> * @return true if the sensor's record level indicates that the metric
>>> will be recorded, false otherwise
>>> */
>>> public boolean shouldRecord() {
>>> return this.recordLevel.shouldRecord(config.recordLevel());
>>> }
>>> 
>>> From nested enum, Sensor.RecordLevel
>>> 
>>> public boolean shouldRecord(final RecordLevel configLevel) {
>>> if (configLevel.equals(DEBUG)) {
>>> return true;
>>> } else {
>>> return configLevel.equals(this);
>>> }
>>> }
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2. Need to discuss with Eno.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> aarti
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Guozhang Wang 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 LGTM overall. A few comments below:
 
 1. "METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG" is the internal code's variable
>> name,
>> but
 not the 

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Jay Kreps]

This is great! A couple of quick comments:

   1. It'd be good to make the motivation a bit more clear. I think the
   motivation is "We want to have lots of partition/task/etc metrics but we're
   concerned about the performance impact so we want to disable them by
   default." Currently the motivation section is more about the proposed
   change and doesn't really make clear why.
   2. Do we have a microbenchmark that shows that the performance of (1)
   enabled metrics, (2) disabled metrics, (3) no metrics? This would help
   build the case for needing this extra knob. Obviously if metrics are cheap
   you would always just leave them enabled and not worry about it. I think
   there should be some cost because we are at least taking a lock during the
   recording but I'm not sure how material that is.
   3. One consideration in how this exposed: we always found the ability to
   dynamically change the logging level in JMX for log4j pretty useful. I
   think if we want to leave the door open to add this ability to enable
   metrics at runtime it may have some impact on the decision around how
   metrics are registered/reported.

-Jay

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Guozhang Wang  wrote:

> I thought about "not registering at all" and left a comment on the PR as
> well regarding this idea. My concern is that it may be not very
> straight-forward to implement though via the MetricsReporter interface, if
> Eno and Aarti has a good approach to tackle it I would love it.
>
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Eno Thereska 
> wrote:
>
> > Updated KIP for 1. Waiting to hear from Guozhang on 2 and then we can
> > proceed.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Eno
> > > On 5 Jan 2017, at 12:27, Ismael Juma  wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Eno. It would be good to update the KIP as well with regards to
> 1.
> > >
> > > About 2, I am not sure how adding a field could break existing tools.
> > > Having said that, your suggestion not to register sensors at all if
> their
> > > record level is below what is configured works for me.
> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Eno Thereska 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks Ismael. Already addressed 1. in the PR.
> > >>
> > >> As for 2. I'd prefer not adding extra info to the metrics reporters at
> > >> this point, since it might break existing tools out there (e.g., if we
> > add
> > >> things like configured level). Existing tools might be expecting the
> > info
> > >> to be reported in a particular format.
> > >>
> > >> If the current way is confusing, I think the next best alternative is
> to
> > >> not register sensors at all if their record level is below what is
> > >> configured. That way they don't show up at all. This will require some
> > more
> > >> code in Sensors.java to check at every step, but I think it's clean
> from
> > >> the user's point of view.
> > >>
> > >> Eno
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 11:23, Ismael Juma  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for the KIP, it seems like a good improvement. A couple of
> > >> comments:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. As Jun asked in the PR, do we need a broker config as well? The
> > broker
> > >>> uses Kafka Metrics for some metrics, but we probably don't have any
> > debug
> > >>> sensors at the broker yet. Either way, it would be good to describe
> the
> > >>> thinking around this.
> > >>>
> > >>> 2. The behaviour with regards to the metrics reporter could be
> > >> surprising.
> > >>> It would be good to elaborate a little more on this aspect. For
> > example,
> > >>> maybe we want to expose the sensor level and the current configured
> > level
> > >>> to metric reporters. That could then be used to build the debug/info
> > >>> dashboard that Eno mentioned (while making it clear that some metrics
> > >>> exist, but are not currently being recorded).
> > >>>
> > >>> Ismael
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Eno Thereska <
> eno.there...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Correct on 2. Guozhang: the sensor will be registered and polled by
> a
> >  reporter, but the metrics associated with it will not be updated.
> > 
> >  That would allow a user to have, for example, a debug dashboard and
> an
> >  info dashboard.
> > 
> >  Updated KIP to make this clear.
> > 
> >  Thanks
> >  Eno
> > 
> > 
> > > On 4 Jan 2017, at 18:00, Aarti Gupta 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the review, Guozhang,
> > >
> > > Addressed 2 out of the three comments,
> > >
> > > 1. Fixed and updated KIP (swapped code variable name
> > > METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG with config name metrics.record.level)
> > >
> > > 3. >>Could you elaborate on the "shouldRecord()" function, e.g.
> which
> >  class
> > > it will be added to? Does it contain any parameters?
> > >
> > > Added more details on shouldRecord()  on the KIP
> > >
> > > In Sensor.java the shouldRecord() method is used to compare the
> value
> > >> of
> > >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Guozhang Wang]

I thought about "not registering at all" and left a comment on the PR as
well regarding this idea. My concern is that it may be not very
straight-forward to implement though via the MetricsReporter interface, if
Eno and Aarti has a good approach to tackle it I would love it.


Guozhang

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:34 AM, Eno Thereska  wrote:

> Updated KIP for 1. Waiting to hear from Guozhang on 2 and then we can
> proceed.
>
> Thanks
> Eno
> > On 5 Jan 2017, at 12:27, Ismael Juma  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Eno. It would be good to update the KIP as well with regards to 1.
> >
> > About 2, I am not sure how adding a field could break existing tools.
> > Having said that, your suggestion not to register sensors at all if their
> > record level is below what is configured works for me.
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Eno Thereska 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Ismael. Already addressed 1. in the PR.
> >>
> >> As for 2. I'd prefer not adding extra info to the metrics reporters at
> >> this point, since it might break existing tools out there (e.g., if we
> add
> >> things like configured level). Existing tools might be expecting the
> info
> >> to be reported in a particular format.
> >>
> >> If the current way is confusing, I think the next best alternative is to
> >> not register sensors at all if their record level is below what is
> >> configured. That way they don't show up at all. This will require some
> more
> >> code in Sensors.java to check at every step, but I think it's clean from
> >> the user's point of view.
> >>
> >> Eno
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 11:23, Ismael Juma  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the KIP, it seems like a good improvement. A couple of
> >> comments:
> >>>
> >>> 1. As Jun asked in the PR, do we need a broker config as well? The
> broker
> >>> uses Kafka Metrics for some metrics, but we probably don't have any
> debug
> >>> sensors at the broker yet. Either way, it would be good to describe the
> >>> thinking around this.
> >>>
> >>> 2. The behaviour with regards to the metrics reporter could be
> >> surprising.
> >>> It would be good to elaborate a little more on this aspect. For
> example,
> >>> maybe we want to expose the sensor level and the current configured
> level
> >>> to metric reporters. That could then be used to build the debug/info
> >>> dashboard that Eno mentioned (while making it clear that some metrics
> >>> exist, but are not currently being recorded).
> >>>
> >>> Ismael
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Eno Thereska 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Correct on 2. Guozhang: the sensor will be registered and polled by a
>  reporter, but the metrics associated with it will not be updated.
> 
>  That would allow a user to have, for example, a debug dashboard and an
>  info dashboard.
> 
>  Updated KIP to make this clear.
> 
>  Thanks
>  Eno
> 
> 
> > On 4 Jan 2017, at 18:00, Aarti Gupta  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the review, Guozhang,
> >
> > Addressed 2 out of the three comments,
> >
> > 1. Fixed and updated KIP (swapped code variable name
> > METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG with config name metrics.record.level)
> >
> > 3. >>Could you elaborate on the "shouldRecord()" function, e.g. which
>  class
> > it will be added to? Does it contain any parameters?
> >
> > Added more details on shouldRecord()  on the KIP
> >
> > In Sensor.java the shouldRecord() method is used to compare the value
> >> of
> > metric record level in the consumer config and the RecordLevel
> >> associated
> > with the sensor, to determine if metrics should recorded.
> >
> > From Sensor.java
> >
> > /**
> > * @return true if the sensor's record level indicates that the metric
> > will be recorded, false otherwise
> > */
> > public boolean shouldRecord() {
> >  return this.recordLevel.shouldRecord(config.recordLevel());
> > }
> >
> > From nested enum, Sensor.RecordLevel
> >
> > public boolean shouldRecord(final RecordLevel configLevel) {
> >  if (configLevel.equals(DEBUG)) {
> >  return true;
> > } else {
> >  return configLevel.equals(this);
> > }
> > }
> >
> >
> > 2. Need to discuss with Eno.
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > aarti
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Guozhang Wang 
>  wrote:
> >
> >> LGTM overall. A few comments below:
> >>
> >> 1. "METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG" is the internal code's variable
> name,
>  but
> >> not the real config string, I think it is `metrics.record.level`
>  instead?
> >>
> >> 2. In the Motivation section, as in "This associates each sensor
> with
> >> a
> >> record level ... only if the metric config of the client requires
> >> these
> >> metrics to be recorded."
> >>
> >> Could you elaborate this a bit more, 

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Eno Thereska]

Updated KIP for 1. Waiting to hear from Guozhang on 2 and then we can proceed.

Thanks
Eno
> On 5 Jan 2017, at 12:27, Ismael Juma  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Eno. It would be good to update the KIP as well with regards to 1.
> 
> About 2, I am not sure how adding a field could break existing tools.
> Having said that, your suggestion not to register sensors at all if their
> record level is below what is configured works for me.
> 
> Ismael
> 
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Eno Thereska 
> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Ismael. Already addressed 1. in the PR.
>> 
>> As for 2. I'd prefer not adding extra info to the metrics reporters at
>> this point, since it might break existing tools out there (e.g., if we add
>> things like configured level). Existing tools might be expecting the info
>> to be reported in a particular format.
>> 
>> If the current way is confusing, I think the next best alternative is to
>> not register sensors at all if their record level is below what is
>> configured. That way they don't show up at all. This will require some more
>> code in Sensors.java to check at every step, but I think it's clean from
>> the user's point of view.
>> 
>> Eno
>> 
>> 
>>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 11:23, Ismael Juma  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the KIP, it seems like a good improvement. A couple of
>> comments:
>>> 
>>> 1. As Jun asked in the PR, do we need a broker config as well? The broker
>>> uses Kafka Metrics for some metrics, but we probably don't have any debug
>>> sensors at the broker yet. Either way, it would be good to describe the
>>> thinking around this.
>>> 
>>> 2. The behaviour with regards to the metrics reporter could be
>> surprising.
>>> It would be good to elaborate a little more on this aspect. For example,
>>> maybe we want to expose the sensor level and the current configured level
>>> to metric reporters. That could then be used to build the debug/info
>>> dashboard that Eno mentioned (while making it clear that some metrics
>>> exist, but are not currently being recorded).
>>> 
>>> Ismael
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Eno Thereska 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Correct on 2. Guozhang: the sensor will be registered and polled by a
 reporter, but the metrics associated with it will not be updated.
 
 That would allow a user to have, for example, a debug dashboard and an
 info dashboard.
 
 Updated KIP to make this clear.
 
 Thanks
 Eno
 
 
> On 4 Jan 2017, at 18:00, Aarti Gupta  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the review, Guozhang,
> 
> Addressed 2 out of the three comments,
> 
> 1. Fixed and updated KIP (swapped code variable name
> METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG with config name metrics.record.level)
> 
> 3. >>Could you elaborate on the "shouldRecord()" function, e.g. which
 class
> it will be added to? Does it contain any parameters?
> 
> Added more details on shouldRecord()  on the KIP
> 
> In Sensor.java the shouldRecord() method is used to compare the value
>> of
> metric record level in the consumer config and the RecordLevel
>> associated
> with the sensor, to determine if metrics should recorded.
> 
> From Sensor.java
> 
> /**
> * @return true if the sensor's record level indicates that the metric
> will be recorded, false otherwise
> */
> public boolean shouldRecord() {
>  return this.recordLevel.shouldRecord(config.recordLevel());
> }
> 
> From nested enum, Sensor.RecordLevel
> 
> public boolean shouldRecord(final RecordLevel configLevel) {
>  if (configLevel.equals(DEBUG)) {
>  return true;
> } else {
>  return configLevel.equals(this);
> }
> }
> 
> 
> 2. Need to discuss with Eno.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> aarti
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Guozhang Wang 
 wrote:
> 
>> LGTM overall. A few comments below:
>> 
>> 1. "METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG" is the internal code's variable name,
 but
>> not the real config string, I think it is `metrics.record.level`
 instead?
>> 
>> 2. In the Motivation section, as in "This associates each sensor with
>> a
>> record level ... only if the metric config of the client requires
>> these
>> metrics to be recorded."
>> 
>> Could you elaborate this a bit more, for example, will the sensor ever
 be
>> registered in the reporter if its level is not allowed in the client
>> config? Or it will be registered but never polled? Or it will be
 registered
>> and polled, but recorded?
>> 
>> From PR 1446 it seems to be the last case, i.e. the sensor will have
>> the
>> default value based on its type, and it will still be polled by the
>> reporter but not recorded. To an end-user's experience it will mean
>> that
>> for example the monitoring UI that displays all polled metrics will
 still
>> show the me

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Ismael Juma]

Thanks Eno. It would be good to update the KIP as well with regards to 1.

About 2, I am not sure how adding a field could break existing tools.
Having said that, your suggestion not to register sensors at all if their
record level is below what is configured works for me.

Ismael

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Eno Thereska 
wrote:

> Thanks Ismael. Already addressed 1. in the PR.
>
> As for 2. I'd prefer not adding extra info to the metrics reporters at
> this point, since it might break existing tools out there (e.g., if we add
> things like configured level). Existing tools might be expecting the info
> to be reported in a particular format.
>
> If the current way is confusing, I think the next best alternative is to
> not register sensors at all if their record level is below what is
> configured. That way they don't show up at all. This will require some more
> code in Sensors.java to check at every step, but I think it's clean from
> the user's point of view.
>
> Eno
>
>
> > On 5 Jan 2017, at 11:23, Ismael Juma  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the KIP, it seems like a good improvement. A couple of
> comments:
> >
> > 1. As Jun asked in the PR, do we need a broker config as well? The broker
> > uses Kafka Metrics for some metrics, but we probably don't have any debug
> > sensors at the broker yet. Either way, it would be good to describe the
> > thinking around this.
> >
> > 2. The behaviour with regards to the metrics reporter could be
> surprising.
> > It would be good to elaborate a little more on this aspect. For example,
> > maybe we want to expose the sensor level and the current configured level
> > to metric reporters. That could then be used to build the debug/info
> > dashboard that Eno mentioned (while making it clear that some metrics
> > exist, but are not currently being recorded).
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Eno Thereska 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Correct on 2. Guozhang: the sensor will be registered and polled by a
> >> reporter, but the metrics associated with it will not be updated.
> >>
> >> That would allow a user to have, for example, a debug dashboard and an
> >> info dashboard.
> >>
> >> Updated KIP to make this clear.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Eno
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 4 Jan 2017, at 18:00, Aarti Gupta  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the review, Guozhang,
> >>>
> >>> Addressed 2 out of the three comments,
> >>>
> >>> 1. Fixed and updated KIP (swapped code variable name
> >>> METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG with config name metrics.record.level)
> >>>
> >>> 3. >>Could you elaborate on the "shouldRecord()" function, e.g. which
> >> class
> >>> it will be added to? Does it contain any parameters?
> >>>
> >>> Added more details on shouldRecord()  on the KIP
> >>>
> >>> In Sensor.java the shouldRecord() method is used to compare the value
> of
> >>> metric record level in the consumer config and the RecordLevel
> associated
> >>> with the sensor, to determine if metrics should recorded.
> >>>
> >>> From Sensor.java
> >>>
> >>> /**
> >>> * @return true if the sensor's record level indicates that the metric
> >>> will be recorded, false otherwise
> >>> */
> >>> public boolean shouldRecord() {
> >>>   return this.recordLevel.shouldRecord(config.recordLevel());
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> From nested enum, Sensor.RecordLevel
> >>>
> >>> public boolean shouldRecord(final RecordLevel configLevel) {
> >>>   if (configLevel.equals(DEBUG)) {
> >>>   return true;
> >>> } else {
> >>>   return configLevel.equals(this);
> >>> }
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2. Need to discuss with Eno.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> aarti
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Guozhang Wang 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
>  LGTM overall. A few comments below:
> 
>  1. "METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG" is the internal code's variable name,
> >> but
>  not the real config string, I think it is `metrics.record.level`
> >> instead?
> 
>  2. In the Motivation section, as in "This associates each sensor with
> a
>  record level ... only if the metric config of the client requires
> these
>  metrics to be recorded."
> 
>  Could you elaborate this a bit more, for example, will the sensor ever
> >> be
>  registered in the reporter if its level is not allowed in the client
>  config? Or it will be registered but never polled? Or it will be
> >> registered
>  and polled, but recorded?
> 
>  From PR 1446 it seems to be the last case, i.e. the sensor will have
> the
>  default value based on its type, and it will still be polled by the
>  reporter but not recorded. To an end-user's experience it will mean
> that
>  for example the monitoring UI that displays all polled metrics will
> >> still
>  show the metrics graph, with the value consistently shown as the
> default
>  value, instead of not showing the graphs at all.
> 
>  3. Could you elaborate on the "shouldRecord()" function, e.g. which
> >> class
>  it w

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Eno Thereska]

Thanks Ismael. Already addressed 1. in the PR.

As for 2. I'd prefer not adding extra info to the metrics reporters at this 
point, since it might break existing tools out there (e.g., if we add things 
like configured level). Existing tools might be expecting the info to be 
reported in a particular format.

If the current way is confusing, I think the next best alternative is to not 
register sensors at all if their record level is below what is configured. That 
way they don't show up at all. This will require some more code in Sensors.java 
to check at every step, but I think it's clean from the user's point of view.

Eno


> On 5 Jan 2017, at 11:23, Ismael Juma  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the KIP, it seems like a good improvement. A couple of comments:
> 
> 1. As Jun asked in the PR, do we need a broker config as well? The broker
> uses Kafka Metrics for some metrics, but we probably don't have any debug
> sensors at the broker yet. Either way, it would be good to describe the
> thinking around this.
> 
> 2. The behaviour with regards to the metrics reporter could be surprising.
> It would be good to elaborate a little more on this aspect. For example,
> maybe we want to expose the sensor level and the current configured level
> to metric reporters. That could then be used to build the debug/info
> dashboard that Eno mentioned (while making it clear that some metrics
> exist, but are not currently being recorded).
> 
> Ismael
> 
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Eno Thereska 
> wrote:
> 
>> Correct on 2. Guozhang: the sensor will be registered and polled by a
>> reporter, but the metrics associated with it will not be updated.
>> 
>> That would allow a user to have, for example, a debug dashboard and an
>> info dashboard.
>> 
>> Updated KIP to make this clear.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Eno
>> 
>> 
>>> On 4 Jan 2017, at 18:00, Aarti Gupta  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the review, Guozhang,
>>> 
>>> Addressed 2 out of the three comments,
>>> 
>>> 1. Fixed and updated KIP (swapped code variable name
>>> METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG with config name metrics.record.level)
>>> 
>>> 3. >>Could you elaborate on the "shouldRecord()" function, e.g. which
>> class
>>> it will be added to? Does it contain any parameters?
>>> 
>>> Added more details on shouldRecord()  on the KIP
>>> 
>>> In Sensor.java the shouldRecord() method is used to compare the value of
>>> metric record level in the consumer config and the RecordLevel associated
>>> with the sensor, to determine if metrics should recorded.
>>> 
>>> From Sensor.java
>>> 
>>> /**
>>> * @return true if the sensor's record level indicates that the metric
>>> will be recorded, false otherwise
>>> */
>>> public boolean shouldRecord() {
>>>   return this.recordLevel.shouldRecord(config.recordLevel());
>>> }
>>> 
>>> From nested enum, Sensor.RecordLevel
>>> 
>>> public boolean shouldRecord(final RecordLevel configLevel) {
>>>   if (configLevel.equals(DEBUG)) {
>>>   return true;
>>> } else {
>>>   return configLevel.equals(this);
>>> }
>>> }
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2. Need to discuss with Eno.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> aarti
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Guozhang Wang 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 LGTM overall. A few comments below:
 
 1. "METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG" is the internal code's variable name,
>> but
 not the real config string, I think it is `metrics.record.level`
>> instead?
 
 2. In the Motivation section, as in "This associates each sensor with a
 record level ... only if the metric config of the client requires these
 metrics to be recorded."
 
 Could you elaborate this a bit more, for example, will the sensor ever
>> be
 registered in the reporter if its level is not allowed in the client
 config? Or it will be registered but never polled? Or it will be
>> registered
 and polled, but recorded?
 
 From PR 1446 it seems to be the last case, i.e. the sensor will have the
 default value based on its type, and it will still be polled by the
 reporter but not recorded. To an end-user's experience it will mean that
 for example the monitoring UI that displays all polled metrics will
>> still
 show the metrics graph, with the value consistently shown as the default
 value, instead of not showing the graphs at all.
 
 3. Could you elaborate on the "shouldRecord()" function, e.g. which
>> class
 it will be added to? Does it contain any parameters?
 
 
 Guozhang
 
 
 
 On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Eno Thereska 
 wrote:
 
> Thanks for starting the discussion on these KIPs Aarti.
> 
> Eno
> 
> On Sunday, January 1, 2017, Aarti Gupta  wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Radai,
>> 
>> Yes that is the correct link, my bad
>> 
>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>> 105%3A+Addition+of+Record+Level+for+Sensors
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Aarti
>> 
>> On Sat, D

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Ismael Juma]

Thanks for the KIP, it seems like a good improvement. A couple of comments:

1. As Jun asked in the PR, do we need a broker config as well? The broker
uses Kafka Metrics for some metrics, but we probably don't have any debug
sensors at the broker yet. Either way, it would be good to describe the
thinking around this.

2. The behaviour with regards to the metrics reporter could be surprising.
It would be good to elaborate a little more on this aspect. For example,
maybe we want to expose the sensor level and the current configured level
to metric reporters. That could then be used to build the debug/info
dashboard that Eno mentioned (while making it clear that some metrics
exist, but are not currently being recorded).

Ismael

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Eno Thereska 
wrote:

> Correct on 2. Guozhang: the sensor will be registered and polled by a
> reporter, but the metrics associated with it will not be updated.
>
> That would allow a user to have, for example, a debug dashboard and an
> info dashboard.
>
> Updated KIP to make this clear.
>
> Thanks
> Eno
>
>
> > On 4 Jan 2017, at 18:00, Aarti Gupta  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the review, Guozhang,
> >
> > Addressed 2 out of the three comments,
> >
> > 1. Fixed and updated KIP (swapped code variable name
> > METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG with config name metrics.record.level)
> >
> > 3. >>Could you elaborate on the "shouldRecord()" function, e.g. which
> class
> > it will be added to? Does it contain any parameters?
> >
> > Added more details on shouldRecord()  on the KIP
> >
> > In Sensor.java the shouldRecord() method is used to compare the value of
> > metric record level in the consumer config and the RecordLevel associated
> > with the sensor, to determine if metrics should recorded.
> >
> > From Sensor.java
> >
> > /**
> > * @return true if the sensor's record level indicates that the metric
> > will be recorded, false otherwise
> > */
> > public boolean shouldRecord() {
> >return this.recordLevel.shouldRecord(config.recordLevel());
> > }
> >
> > From nested enum, Sensor.RecordLevel
> >
> > public boolean shouldRecord(final RecordLevel configLevel) {
> >if (configLevel.equals(DEBUG)) {
> >return true;
> > } else {
> >return configLevel.equals(this);
> > }
> > }
> >
> >
> > 2. Need to discuss with Eno.
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > aarti
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Guozhang Wang 
> wrote:
> >
> >> LGTM overall. A few comments below:
> >>
> >> 1. "METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG" is the internal code's variable name,
> but
> >> not the real config string, I think it is `metrics.record.level`
> instead?
> >>
> >> 2. In the Motivation section, as in "This associates each sensor with a
> >> record level ... only if the metric config of the client requires these
> >> metrics to be recorded."
> >>
> >> Could you elaborate this a bit more, for example, will the sensor ever
> be
> >> registered in the reporter if its level is not allowed in the client
> >> config? Or it will be registered but never polled? Or it will be
> registered
> >> and polled, but recorded?
> >>
> >> From PR 1446 it seems to be the last case, i.e. the sensor will have the
> >> default value based on its type, and it will still be polled by the
> >> reporter but not recorded. To an end-user's experience it will mean that
> >> for example the monitoring UI that displays all polled metrics will
> still
> >> show the metrics graph, with the value consistently shown as the default
> >> value, instead of not showing the graphs at all.
> >>
> >> 3. Could you elaborate on the "shouldRecord()" function, e.g. which
> class
> >> it will be added to? Does it contain any parameters?
> >>
> >>
> >> Guozhang
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Eno Thereska 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks for starting the discussion on these KIPs Aarti.
> >>>
> >>> Eno
> >>>
> >>> On Sunday, January 1, 2017, Aarti Gupta  wrote:
> >>>
>  Thanks Radai,
> 
>  Yes that is the correct link, my bad
> 
> 
>  https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>  105%3A+Addition+of+Record+Level+for+Sensors
> 
> 
> 
>  Aarti
> 
>  On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:32 PM radai   > wrote:
> 
> > link leads to 104. i think this is the correct one -
> >
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>  105%3A+Addition+of+Record+Level+for+Sensors
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Aarti Gupta   >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >
> >>
> >
> >> I would like to start the discussion on KIP-105: Addition of Record
>  Level
> >
> >> for Sensors
> >
> >> *https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?
> >
> >> <
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
>  action?pageId=67636480
> >
> >>> *
> >
> >> *pageId=67636483*
>

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Eno Thereska]

Correct on 2. Guozhang: the sensor will be registered and polled by a reporter, 
but the metrics associated with it will not be updated. 

That would allow a user to have, for example, a debug dashboard and an info 
dashboard.

Updated KIP to make this clear.

Thanks
Eno


> On 4 Jan 2017, at 18:00, Aarti Gupta  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the review, Guozhang,
> 
> Addressed 2 out of the three comments,
> 
> 1. Fixed and updated KIP (swapped code variable name
> METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG with config name metrics.record.level)
> 
> 3. >>Could you elaborate on the "shouldRecord()" function, e.g. which class
> it will be added to? Does it contain any parameters?
> 
> Added more details on shouldRecord()  on the KIP
> 
> In Sensor.java the shouldRecord() method is used to compare the value of
> metric record level in the consumer config and the RecordLevel associated
> with the sensor, to determine if metrics should recorded.
> 
> From Sensor.java
> 
> /**
> * @return true if the sensor's record level indicates that the metric
> will be recorded, false otherwise
> */
> public boolean shouldRecord() {
>return this.recordLevel.shouldRecord(config.recordLevel());
> }
> 
> From nested enum, Sensor.RecordLevel
> 
> public boolean shouldRecord(final RecordLevel configLevel) {
>if (configLevel.equals(DEBUG)) {
>return true;
> } else {
>return configLevel.equals(this);
> }
> }
> 
> 
> 2. Need to discuss with Eno.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> aarti
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Guozhang Wang  wrote:
> 
>> LGTM overall. A few comments below:
>> 
>> 1. "METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG" is the internal code's variable name, but
>> not the real config string, I think it is `metrics.record.level` instead?
>> 
>> 2. In the Motivation section, as in "This associates each sensor with a
>> record level ... only if the metric config of the client requires these
>> metrics to be recorded."
>> 
>> Could you elaborate this a bit more, for example, will the sensor ever be
>> registered in the reporter if its level is not allowed in the client
>> config? Or it will be registered but never polled? Or it will be registered
>> and polled, but recorded?
>> 
>> From PR 1446 it seems to be the last case, i.e. the sensor will have the
>> default value based on its type, and it will still be polled by the
>> reporter but not recorded. To an end-user's experience it will mean that
>> for example the monitoring UI that displays all polled metrics will still
>> show the metrics graph, with the value consistently shown as the default
>> value, instead of not showing the graphs at all.
>> 
>> 3. Could you elaborate on the "shouldRecord()" function, e.g. which class
>> it will be added to? Does it contain any parameters?
>> 
>> 
>> Guozhang
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Eno Thereska 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks for starting the discussion on these KIPs Aarti.
>>> 
>>> Eno
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, January 1, 2017, Aarti Gupta  wrote:
>>> 
 Thanks Radai,
 
 Yes that is the correct link, my bad
 
 
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
 105%3A+Addition+of+Record+Level+for+Sensors
 
 
 
 Aarti
 
 On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:32 PM radai >>> > wrote:
 
> link leads to 104. i think this is the correct one -
> 
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
 105%3A+Addition+of+Record+Level+for+Sensors
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Aarti Gupta >>> >
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Hi all,
> 
>> 
> 
>> I would like to start the discussion on KIP-105: Addition of Record
 Level
> 
>> for Sensors
> 
>> *https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?
> 
>> <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
 action?pageId=67636480
> 
>>> *
> 
>> *pageId=67636483*
> 
>> 
> 
>> Looking forward to your feedback.
> 
>> 
> 
>> Thanks,
> 
>> Aarti and Eno
> 
>> 
> 
> 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> -- Guozhang
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Aarti Gupta]

Thanks for the review, Guozhang,

Addressed 2 out of the three comments,

1. Fixed and updated KIP (swapped code variable name
METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG with config name metrics.record.level)

3. >>Could you elaborate on the "shouldRecord()" function, e.g. which class
it will be added to? Does it contain any parameters?

Added more details on shouldRecord()  on the KIP

In Sensor.java the shouldRecord() method is used to compare the value of
metric record level in the consumer config and the RecordLevel associated
with the sensor, to determine if metrics should recorded.

>From Sensor.java

 /**
 * @return true if the sensor's record level indicates that the metric
will be recorded, false otherwise
 */
public boolean shouldRecord() {
return this.recordLevel.shouldRecord(config.recordLevel());
}

>From nested enum, Sensor.RecordLevel

public boolean shouldRecord(final RecordLevel configLevel) {
if (configLevel.equals(DEBUG)) {
return true;
 } else {
return configLevel.equals(this);
 }
}


2. Need to discuss with Eno.


Thanks!

aarti





On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM, Guozhang Wang  wrote:

> LGTM overall. A few comments below:
>
> 1. "METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG" is the internal code's variable name, but
> not the real config string, I think it is `metrics.record.level` instead?
>
> 2. In the Motivation section, as in "This associates each sensor with a
> record level ... only if the metric config of the client requires these
> metrics to be recorded."
>
> Could you elaborate this a bit more, for example, will the sensor ever be
> registered in the reporter if its level is not allowed in the client
> config? Or it will be registered but never polled? Or it will be registered
> and polled, but recorded?
>
> From PR 1446 it seems to be the last case, i.e. the sensor will have the
> default value based on its type, and it will still be polled by the
> reporter but not recorded. To an end-user's experience it will mean that
> for example the monitoring UI that displays all polled metrics will still
> show the metrics graph, with the value consistently shown as the default
> value, instead of not showing the graphs at all.
>
> 3. Could you elaborate on the "shouldRecord()" function, e.g. which class
> it will be added to? Does it contain any parameters?
>
>
> Guozhang
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Eno Thereska 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for starting the discussion on these KIPs Aarti.
> >
> > Eno
> >
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2017, Aarti Gupta  wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Radai,
> > >
> > > Yes that is the correct link, my bad
> > >
> > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > 105%3A+Addition+of+Record+Level+for+Sensors
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Aarti
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:32 PM radai  > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > link leads to 104. i think this is the correct one -
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > 105%3A+Addition+of+Record+Level+for+Sensors
> > > >
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Aarti Gupta  > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I would like to start the discussion on KIP-105: Addition of Record
> > > Level
> > > >
> > > > > for Sensors
> > > >
> > > > > *https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?
> > > >
> > > > > <
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > > action?pageId=67636480
> > > >
> > > > > >*
> > > >
> > > > > *pageId=67636483*
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Looking forward to your feedback.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > > Aarti and Eno
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Guozhang Wang]

LGTM overall. A few comments below:

1. "METRICS_RECORD_LEVEL_CONFIG" is the internal code's variable name, but
not the real config string, I think it is `metrics.record.level` instead?

2. In the Motivation section, as in "This associates each sensor with a
record level ... only if the metric config of the client requires these
metrics to be recorded."

Could you elaborate this a bit more, for example, will the sensor ever be
registered in the reporter if its level is not allowed in the client
config? Or it will be registered but never polled? Or it will be registered
and polled, but recorded?

>From PR 1446 it seems to be the last case, i.e. the sensor will have the
default value based on its type, and it will still be polled by the
reporter but not recorded. To an end-user's experience it will mean that
for example the monitoring UI that displays all polled metrics will still
show the metrics graph, with the value consistently shown as the default
value, instead of not showing the graphs at all.

3. Could you elaborate on the "shouldRecord()" function, e.g. which class
it will be added to? Does it contain any parameters?


Guozhang



On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Eno Thereska  wrote:

> Thanks for starting the discussion on these KIPs Aarti.
>
> Eno
>
> On Sunday, January 1, 2017, Aarti Gupta  wrote:
>
> > Thanks Radai,
> >
> > Yes that is the correct link, my bad
> >
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > 105%3A+Addition+of+Record+Level+for+Sensors
> >
> >
> >
> > Aarti
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:32 PM radai  > > wrote:
> >
> > > link leads to 104. i think this is the correct one -
> > >
> > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > 105%3A+Addition+of+Record+Level+for+Sensors
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Aarti Gupta  > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > I would like to start the discussion on KIP-105: Addition of Record
> > Level
> > >
> > > > for Sensors
> > >
> > > > *https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?
> > >
> > > > <
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > action?pageId=67636480
> > >
> > > > >*
> > >
> > > > *pageId=67636483*
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Looking forward to your feedback.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > > Aarti and Eno
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
-- Guozhang

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Eno Thereska]

Thanks for starting the discussion on these KIPs Aarti.

Eno

On Sunday, January 1, 2017, Aarti Gupta  wrote:

> Thanks Radai,
>
> Yes that is the correct link, my bad
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> 105%3A+Addition+of+Record+Level+for+Sensors
>
>
>
> Aarti
>
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:32 PM radai  > wrote:
>
> > link leads to 104. i think this is the correct one -
> >
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> 105%3A+Addition+of+Record+Level+for+Sensors
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Aarti Gupta  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Hi all,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I would like to start the discussion on KIP-105: Addition of Record
> Level
> >
> > > for Sensors
> >
> > > *https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?
> >
> > > <
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> action?pageId=67636480
> >
> > > >*
> >
> > > *pageId=67636483*
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Looking forward to your feedback.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Thanks,
> >
> > > Aarti and Eno
> >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Aarti Gupta]

Thanks Radai,

Yes that is the correct link, my bad


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-105%3A+Addition+of+Record+Level+for+Sensors



Aarti

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:32 PM radai  wrote:

> link leads to 104. i think this is the correct one -
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-105%3A+Addition+of+Record+Level+for+Sensors
>
> ?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Aarti Gupta 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
>
> >
>
> > I would like to start the discussion on KIP-105: Addition of Record Level
>
> > for Sensors
>
> > *https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?
>
> > <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=67636480
>
> > >*
>
> > *pageId=67636483*
>
> >
>
> > Looking forward to your feedback.
>
> >
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Aarti and Eno
>
> >
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[radai]

link leads to 104. i think this is the correct one -
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-105%3A+Addition+of+Record+Level+for+Sensors
?

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Aarti Gupta  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I would like to start the discussion on KIP-105: Addition of Record Level
> for Sensors
> *https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?
>  >*
> *pageId=67636483*
>
> Looking forward to your feedback.
>
> Thanks,
> Aarti and Eno
>

[DISCUSS] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

[Aarti Gupta]

Hi all,

I would like to start the discussion on KIP-105: Addition of Record Level
for Sensors
*https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?
*
*pageId=67636483*

Looking forward to your feedback.

Thanks,
Aarti and Eno