[DISCUSS] KIP-503: deleted topics metric

[David Arthur <da...@apache.org>]

Hello all, I'd like to start a discussion for
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-503%3A+Add+metric+for+number+of+topics+marked+for+deletion

Thanks!
David

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-503: deleted topics metric

[David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com>]

Stan, I think that makes sense. I'll update the KIP and start the vote
shortly.

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 12:54 PM Stanislav Kozlovski <st...@confluent.io>
wrote:

> What do people think if we exposed:
> * eligible topics/replicas pending delete
> * ineligible topics/replicas pending delete
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:16 PM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It looks like topicsIneligibleForDeletion is a subset of
> topicsToBeDeleted
> > in the controller.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:16 AM Stanislav Kozlovski <
> > stanislav@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > ineligible replicas/topics are not included in the pending metrics,
> > right?
> > > If so, sounds good to me.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:12 PM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes I think exposing ineligible topics would be useful as well. The
> > > > controller also tracks this ineligible state for replicas. Would that
> > be
> > > > useful to expose as well?
> > > >
> > > > In that case, we'd be up to four new metrics:
> > > > * topics pending delete
> > > > * replicas pending delete
> > > > * ineligible topics
> > > > * ineligible replicas
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 5:16 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the KIP. This is useful. The controller also maintains a
> > set
> > > > for
> > > > > topics which are awaiting deletion, but currently ineligible. A
> topic
> > > > which
> > > > > is undergoing reassignment, for example, is ineligible for
> deletion.
> > > > Would
> > > > > it make sense to have a metric for this as well?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Jason
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Updated the KIP with a count of replicas awaiting deletion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback, Stan. That's a good point about the
> > > > partition
> > > > > > > count -- I'll poke around and see if I can surface this value
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > Controller.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:13 AM Stanislav Kozlovski <
> > > > > > stanislav@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Thanks for the KIP David,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> As you mentioned in the KIP - "when a large number of topics
> > > > > > (partitions,
> > > > > > >> really) are deleted at once, it can take significant time for
> > the
> > > > > > >> Controller to process everything.
> > > > > > >> In that sense, does it make sense to have the metric expose
> the
> > > > number
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> partitions that are pending deletion, as opposed to topics?
> > > Perhaps
> > > > > even
> > > > > > >> both?
> > > > > > >> My reasoning is that this metric alone wouldn't say much if we
> > had
> > > > one
> > > > > > >> topic with 1000 partitions versus a topic with 1 partition
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:19 PM Harsha Chintalapani <
> > > kafka@harsha.io
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Thanks for the KIP.  Its useful metric to have.  LGTM.
> > > > > > >> > -Harsha
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:24 AM, David Arthur <
> > > > > > davidarthur@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > Hello all, I'd like to start a discussion for
> > > > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > > > > >> > >
> > KIP-503%3A+Add+metric+for+number+of+topics+marked+for+deletion
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >> > > David
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > >> Stanislav
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > David Arthur
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > David Arthur
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Arthur
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best,
> > > Stanislav
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Arthur
> >
>
>
> --
> Best,
> Stanislav
>


-- 
David Arthur

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-503: deleted topics metric

[Stanislav Kozlovski <st...@confluent.io>]

What do people think if we exposed:
* eligible topics/replicas pending delete
* ineligible topics/replicas pending delete

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 5:16 PM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It looks like topicsIneligibleForDeletion is a subset of topicsToBeDeleted
> in the controller.
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:16 AM Stanislav Kozlovski <
> stanislav@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
> > ineligible replicas/topics are not included in the pending metrics,
> right?
> > If so, sounds good to me.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:12 PM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes I think exposing ineligible topics would be useful as well. The
> > > controller also tracks this ineligible state for replicas. Would that
> be
> > > useful to expose as well?
> > >
> > > In that case, we'd be up to four new metrics:
> > > * topics pending delete
> > > * replicas pending delete
> > > * ineligible topics
> > > * ineligible replicas
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 5:16 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the KIP. This is useful. The controller also maintains a
> set
> > > for
> > > > topics which are awaiting deletion, but currently ineligible. A topic
> > > which
> > > > is undergoing reassignment, for example, is ineligible for deletion.
> > > Would
> > > > it make sense to have a metric for this as well?
> > > >
> > > > -Jason
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Updated the KIP with a count of replicas awaiting deletion.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the feedback, Stan. That's a good point about the
> > > partition
> > > > > > count -- I'll poke around and see if I can surface this value in
> > the
> > > > > > Controller.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:13 AM Stanislav Kozlovski <
> > > > > stanislav@confluent.io>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Thanks for the KIP David,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> As you mentioned in the KIP - "when a large number of topics
> > > > > (partitions,
> > > > > >> really) are deleted at once, it can take significant time for
> the
> > > > > >> Controller to process everything.
> > > > > >> In that sense, does it make sense to have the metric expose the
> > > number
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> partitions that are pending deletion, as opposed to topics?
> > Perhaps
> > > > even
> > > > > >> both?
> > > > > >> My reasoning is that this metric alone wouldn't say much if we
> had
> > > one
> > > > > >> topic with 1000 partitions versus a topic with 1 partition
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:19 PM Harsha Chintalapani <
> > kafka@harsha.io
> > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Thanks for the KIP.  Its useful metric to have.  LGTM.
> > > > > >> > -Harsha
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:24 AM, David Arthur <
> > > > > davidarthur@apache.org>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Hello all, I'd like to start a discussion for
> > > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > > > >> > >
> KIP-503%3A+Add+metric+for+number+of+topics+marked+for+deletion
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > > >> > > David
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > >> Stanislav
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > David Arthur
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > David Arthur
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Arthur
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best,
> > Stanislav
> >
>
>
> --
> David Arthur
>


-- 
Best,
Stanislav

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-503: deleted topics metric

[David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com>]

It looks like topicsIneligibleForDeletion is a subset of topicsToBeDeleted
in the controller.

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:16 AM Stanislav Kozlovski <st...@confluent.io>
wrote:

> ineligible replicas/topics are not included in the pending metrics, right?
> If so, sounds good to me.
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:12 PM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes I think exposing ineligible topics would be useful as well. The
> > controller also tracks this ineligible state for replicas. Would that be
> > useful to expose as well?
> >
> > In that case, we'd be up to four new metrics:
> > * topics pending delete
> > * replicas pending delete
> > * ineligible topics
> > * ineligible replicas
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 5:16 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the KIP. This is useful. The controller also maintains a set
> > for
> > > topics which are awaiting deletion, but currently ineligible. A topic
> > which
> > > is undergoing reassignment, for example, is ineligible for deletion.
> > Would
> > > it make sense to have a metric for this as well?
> > >
> > > -Jason
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Updated the KIP with a count of replicas awaiting deletion.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the feedback, Stan. That's a good point about the
> > partition
> > > > > count -- I'll poke around and see if I can surface this value in
> the
> > > > > Controller.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:13 AM Stanislav Kozlovski <
> > > > stanislav@confluent.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Thanks for the KIP David,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As you mentioned in the KIP - "when a large number of topics
> > > > (partitions,
> > > > >> really) are deleted at once, it can take significant time for the
> > > > >> Controller to process everything.
> > > > >> In that sense, does it make sense to have the metric expose the
> > number
> > > > of
> > > > >> partitions that are pending deletion, as opposed to topics?
> Perhaps
> > > even
> > > > >> both?
> > > > >> My reasoning is that this metric alone wouldn't say much if we had
> > one
> > > > >> topic with 1000 partitions versus a topic with 1 partition
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:19 PM Harsha Chintalapani <
> kafka@harsha.io
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Thanks for the KIP.  Its useful metric to have.  LGTM.
> > > > >> > -Harsha
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:24 AM, David Arthur <
> > > > davidarthur@apache.org>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Hello all, I'd like to start a discussion for
> > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > > >> > > KIP-503%3A+Add+metric+for+number+of+topics+marked+for+deletion
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Thanks!
> > > > >> > > David
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Best,
> > > > >> Stanislav
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > David Arthur
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Arthur
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Arthur
> >
>
>
> --
> Best,
> Stanislav
>


-- 
David Arthur

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-503: deleted topics metric

[Stanislav Kozlovski <st...@confluent.io>]

ineligible replicas/topics are not included in the pending metrics, right?
If so, sounds good to me.

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:12 PM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes I think exposing ineligible topics would be useful as well. The
> controller also tracks this ineligible state for replicas. Would that be
> useful to expose as well?
>
> In that case, we'd be up to four new metrics:
> * topics pending delete
> * replicas pending delete
> * ineligible topics
> * ineligible replicas
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 5:16 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the KIP. This is useful. The controller also maintains a set
> for
> > topics which are awaiting deletion, but currently ineligible. A topic
> which
> > is undergoing reassignment, for example, is ineligible for deletion.
> Would
> > it make sense to have a metric for this as well?
> >
> > -Jason
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Updated the KIP with a count of replicas awaiting deletion.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the feedback, Stan. That's a good point about the
> partition
> > > > count -- I'll poke around and see if I can surface this value in the
> > > > Controller.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:13 AM Stanislav Kozlovski <
> > > stanislav@confluent.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Thanks for the KIP David,
> > > >>
> > > >> As you mentioned in the KIP - "when a large number of topics
> > > (partitions,
> > > >> really) are deleted at once, it can take significant time for the
> > > >> Controller to process everything.
> > > >> In that sense, does it make sense to have the metric expose the
> number
> > > of
> > > >> partitions that are pending deletion, as opposed to topics? Perhaps
> > even
> > > >> both?
> > > >> My reasoning is that this metric alone wouldn't say much if we had
> one
> > > >> topic with 1000 partitions versus a topic with 1 partition
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:19 PM Harsha Chintalapani <kafka@harsha.io
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Thanks for the KIP.  Its useful metric to have.  LGTM.
> > > >> > -Harsha
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:24 AM, David Arthur <
> > > davidarthur@apache.org>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hello all, I'd like to start a discussion for
> > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > >> > > KIP-503%3A+Add+metric+for+number+of+topics+marked+for+deletion
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks!
> > > >> > > David
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Best,
> > > >> Stanislav
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Arthur
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Arthur
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> David Arthur
>


-- 
Best,
Stanislav

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-503: deleted topics metric

[David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com>]

Yes I think exposing ineligible topics would be useful as well. The
controller also tracks this ineligible state for replicas. Would that be
useful to expose as well?

In that case, we'd be up to four new metrics:
* topics pending delete
* replicas pending delete
* ineligible topics
* ineligible replicas

Thoughts?


On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 5:16 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote:

> Thanks for the KIP. This is useful. The controller also maintains a set for
> topics which are awaiting deletion, but currently ineligible. A topic which
> is undergoing reassignment, for example, is ineligible for deletion. Would
> it make sense to have a metric for this as well?
>
> -Jason
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Updated the KIP with a count of replicas awaiting deletion.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the feedback, Stan. That's a good point about the partition
> > > count -- I'll poke around and see if I can surface this value in the
> > > Controller.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:13 AM Stanislav Kozlovski <
> > stanislav@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks for the KIP David,
> > >>
> > >> As you mentioned in the KIP - "when a large number of topics
> > (partitions,
> > >> really) are deleted at once, it can take significant time for the
> > >> Controller to process everything.
> > >> In that sense, does it make sense to have the metric expose the number
> > of
> > >> partitions that are pending deletion, as opposed to topics? Perhaps
> even
> > >> both?
> > >> My reasoning is that this metric alone wouldn't say much if we had one
> > >> topic with 1000 partitions versus a topic with 1 partition
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:19 PM Harsha Chintalapani <ka...@harsha.io>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Thanks for the KIP.  Its useful metric to have.  LGTM.
> > >> > -Harsha
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:24 AM, David Arthur <
> > davidarthur@apache.org>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hello all, I'd like to start a discussion for
> > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > >> > > KIP-503%3A+Add+metric+for+number+of+topics+marked+for+deletion
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks!
> > >> > > David
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best,
> > >> Stanislav
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Arthur
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Arthur
> >
>


-- 
David Arthur

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-503: deleted topics metric

[Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>]

Thanks for the KIP. This is useful. The controller also maintains a set for
topics which are awaiting deletion, but currently ineligible. A topic which
is undergoing reassignment, for example, is ineligible for deletion. Would
it make sense to have a metric for this as well?

-Jason

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:52 PM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Updated the KIP with a count of replicas awaiting deletion.
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the feedback, Stan. That's a good point about the partition
> > count -- I'll poke around and see if I can surface this value in the
> > Controller.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:13 AM Stanislav Kozlovski <
> stanislav@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the KIP David,
> >>
> >> As you mentioned in the KIP - "when a large number of topics
> (partitions,
> >> really) are deleted at once, it can take significant time for the
> >> Controller to process everything.
> >> In that sense, does it make sense to have the metric expose the number
> of
> >> partitions that are pending deletion, as opposed to topics? Perhaps even
> >> both?
> >> My reasoning is that this metric alone wouldn't say much if we had one
> >> topic with 1000 partitions versus a topic with 1 partition
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:19 PM Harsha Chintalapani <ka...@harsha.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks for the KIP.  Its useful metric to have.  LGTM.
> >> > -Harsha
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:24 AM, David Arthur <
> davidarthur@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hello all, I'd like to start a discussion for
> >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/
> >> > > KIP-503%3A+Add+metric+for+number+of+topics+marked+for+deletion
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks!
> >> > > David
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best,
> >> Stanislav
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Arthur
> >
>
>
> --
> David Arthur
>

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-503: deleted topics metric

[David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com>]

Updated the KIP with a count of replicas awaiting deletion.

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:37 AM David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback, Stan. That's a good point about the partition
> count -- I'll poke around and see if I can surface this value in the
> Controller.
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:13 AM Stanislav Kozlovski <st...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the KIP David,
>>
>> As you mentioned in the KIP - "when a large number of topics (partitions,
>> really) are deleted at once, it can take significant time for the
>> Controller to process everything.
>> In that sense, does it make sense to have the metric expose the number of
>> partitions that are pending deletion, as opposed to topics? Perhaps even
>> both?
>> My reasoning is that this metric alone wouldn't say much if we had one
>> topic with 1000 partitions versus a topic with 1 partition
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:19 PM Harsha Chintalapani <ka...@harsha.io>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for the KIP.  Its useful metric to have.  LGTM.
>> > -Harsha
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:24 AM, David Arthur <da...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hello all, I'd like to start a discussion for
>> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/
>> > > KIP-503%3A+Add+metric+for+number+of+topics+marked+for+deletion
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > > David
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best,
>> Stanislav
>>
>
>
> --
> David Arthur
>


-- 
David Arthur

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-503: deleted topics metric

[David Arthur <mu...@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the feedback, Stan. That's a good point about the partition
count -- I'll poke around and see if I can surface this value in the
Controller.

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:13 AM Stanislav Kozlovski <st...@confluent.io>
wrote:

> Thanks for the KIP David,
>
> As you mentioned in the KIP - "when a large number of topics (partitions,
> really) are deleted at once, it can take significant time for the
> Controller to process everything.
> In that sense, does it make sense to have the metric expose the number of
> partitions that are pending deletion, as opposed to topics? Perhaps even
> both?
> My reasoning is that this metric alone wouldn't say much if we had one
> topic with 1000 partitions versus a topic with 1 partition
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:19 PM Harsha Chintalapani <ka...@harsha.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the KIP.  Its useful metric to have.  LGTM.
> > -Harsha
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:24 AM, David Arthur <da...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello all, I'd like to start a discussion for
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > KIP-503%3A+Add+metric+for+number+of+topics+marked+for+deletion
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > David
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best,
> Stanislav
>


-- 
David Arthur

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-503: deleted topics metric

[Stanislav Kozlovski <st...@confluent.io>]

Thanks for the KIP David,

As you mentioned in the KIP - "when a large number of topics (partitions,
really) are deleted at once, it can take significant time for the
Controller to process everything.
In that sense, does it make sense to have the metric expose the number of
partitions that are pending deletion, as opposed to topics? Perhaps even
both?
My reasoning is that this metric alone wouldn't say much if we had one
topic with 1000 partitions versus a topic with 1 partition

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 8:19 PM Harsha Chintalapani <ka...@harsha.io> wrote:

> Thanks for the KIP.  Its useful metric to have.  LGTM.
> -Harsha
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:24 AM, David Arthur <da...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello all, I'd like to start a discussion for
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > KIP-503%3A+Add+metric+for+number+of+topics+marked+for+deletion
> >
> > Thanks!
> > David
> >
>


-- 
Best,
Stanislav

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-503: deleted topics metric

[Harsha Chintalapani <ka...@harsha.io>]

Thanks for the KIP.  Its useful metric to have.  LGTM.
-Harsha


On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:24 AM, David Arthur <da...@apache.org>
wrote:

> Hello all, I'd like to start a discussion for
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/
> KIP-503%3A+Add+metric+for+number+of+topics+marked+for+deletion
>
> Thanks!
> David
>