Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-804: OfflinePartitionsCount Tagged by Topic

Hey Justine, Yes, sorry I will update the wording. The original (untagged) metric will remain the same to ensure any monitoring/alerting will be untouched by this change. With my implementation (that I have not yet pushed upstream from our fork) I am not very concerned about performance impacts.

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-804: OfflinePartitionsCount Tagged by Topic

Hi Mason, Thanks for the KIP. I had a few questions. Are you saying that we will be keeping the original (untagged) offline partitions count metric? I was a little confused by the wording in the KIP> I'm also curious about potential performance impacts. Have you looked into this? Thanks,

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-804: OfflinePartitionsCount Tagged by Topic

Hey, Planning to open a vote for this small change tomorrow - haven't heard anything yet but open to any feedback. Best, Mason On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 1:54 PM Mason Legere wrote: > Hi All, > > I would like to start a discussion for KIP-804 >

[DISCUSS] KIP-804: OfflinePartitionsCount Tagged by Topic

Hi All, I would like to start a discussion for KIP-804 , which proposes tagging the offline partition counter metric (managed by the controller) by the topic name of the corresponding offline