Hi Habib,
With regards to your earlier question about timezones, I've updated the KIP
to remove the LatencyTime abstraction since it is no longer relevant. I
added a note about epoch time as well.
Thanks,
Sean
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 8:28 AM Habib Nahas wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> Thats great,
Hi Gokul,
Thank you for your detailed review. I've summarized the updates I've made
to the KIP inline below. Please review the updated KIP when you have time.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:56 AM Gokul Ramanan Subramanian <
gokul24...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sean.
>
> Thanks for writing this KIP.
Hi Sean,
Thats great, look forward to it.
Thanks,
Habib
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020, at 2:55 PM, Sean Glover wrote:
> Hi Habib,
>
> Thank you for the reminder. I'll update the KIP this week and address the
> feedback from you and Gokul.
>
> Regards,
> Sean
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 9:06 AM Habib
Hi Habib,
Thank you for the reminder. I'll update the KIP this week and address the
feedback from you and Gokul.
Regards,
Sean
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 9:06 AM Habib Nahas wrote:
> Any chance of an update on the KIP? We are interested in seeing this move
> forward.
>
> Thanks,
> Habib
> Sr
Any chance of an update on the KIP? We are interested in seeing this move
forward.
Thanks,
Habib
Sr SDE, AWS
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019, at 3:27 PM, Habib Nahas wrote:
> Thanks Sean. Look forward to the updated KIP.
>
> Regards,
> Habib
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019, at 6:22 AM, Sean Glover wrote:
> >
Hi Sean.
Thanks for writing this KIP. Sounds like a great addition. Few comments.
1. Currently, I see that you have proposed partition-level records-latency
metrics and a global records-latency-max metric across all partitions for a
given consumer group. Some Kafka users may organize their
Thanks Sean. Look forward to the updated KIP.
Regards,
Habib
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019, at 6:22 AM, Sean Glover wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After my last reply I had a nagging feeling something wasn't right, and I
> remembered that epoch time is UTC. This makes the discussion about
> timezone irrelevant, since
Hi,
After my last reply I had a nagging feeling something wasn't right, and I
remembered that epoch time is UTC. This makes the discussion about
timezone irrelevant, since we're always using UTC. This makes the need for
the LatencyTime interface that I proposed in the design irrelevant as well,
Hi Habib,
Thanks for question! If the consumer is in a different timezone than the
timezone used to produce messages to a partition then you can use an
implementation of LatencyTime to return the current time of that timezone.
The current design assumes that messages produced to a partition must
Hi Sean,
Thanks for the KIP.
As I understand it users are free to set their own timestamp on ProducerRecord.
What is the recommendation for the proposed metric in a scenario where the user
sets this timestamp in timezone A and consumes the record in timezone B. Its
not clear to me if a
Hello again,
There has been some interest in this KIP recently. I'm bumping the thread
to encourage feedback on the design.
Regards,
Sean
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 9:01 AM Sean Glover
wrote:
> To hopefully spark some discussion I've copied the motivation section from
> the KIP:
>
> Consumer
To hopefully spark some discussion I've copied the motivation section from
the KIP:
Consumer lag is a useful metric to monitor how many records are queued to
be processed. We can look at individual lag per partition or we may
aggregate metrics. For example, we may want to monitor what the
Hi kafka-dev,
I've created KIP-489 as a proposal for adding latency metrics to the Kafka
Consumer in a similar way as record-lag metrics are implemented.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/489%3A+Kafka+Consumer+Record+Latency+Metric
Regards,
Sean
--
Principal Engineer,
13 matches
Mail list logo
