cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jonathan Ellis (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (CASSANDRA-4861) Consider separating tracing from log4j
Date Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:26:15 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4861?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Jonathan Ellis updated CASSANDRA-4861:
--------------------------------------

    Fix Version/s:     (was: 1.2.0 beta 2)
                   1.2.0

Tagging 1.2.0; don't want to block beta2 for this.
                
> Consider separating tracing from log4j
> --------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-4861
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-4861
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
>             Fix For: 1.2.0
>
>
> Currently, (as far as I understand) tracing is implemented as a log4j appender that "intercepts"
all log messages and write them to a system table. I'm sorry to not have bring that up during
the initial review (it's hard to follow every ticket) but before we release this I'd like
to have a serious discussion on that choice because I'm not convinced (at all) that it's a
good idea. Namely, I can see the following drawbacks:
> # the main one is that this *forces* every debug messages to be traced and conversely,
every traced message to be logged at debug. But I strongly think that debug logging and query
tracing are not the same thing. Don't get me wrong, there is clearly a large intersection
between those two things (which is fine), but I do think that *identifying* them is a mistake.
More concretely:
>  ** Consider some of the messages we log at debug in CFS:
>    {noformat}
>    logger.debug("memtable is already frozen; another thread must be flushing it");
>    logger.debug("forceFlush requested but everything is clean in {}", columnFamily);
>    logger.debug("Checking for sstables overlapping {}", sstables);
>    {noformat}
>    Those messages are useful for debugging and have a place in the log at debug, but
they are noise as far as query tracing is concerned (None have any concrete impact on query
performance, they just describe what the code has done). Or take the following ones from CompactionManager:
>    {noformat}
>    logger.debug("Background compaction is still running for {}.{} ({} remaining). Skipping",
new Object[] {cfs.table.name, cfs.columnFamily, count});
>    logger.debug("Scheduling a background task check for {}.{} with {}", new Object[]
{cfs.table.name, cfs.columnFamily, cfs.getCompactionStrategy().getClass().getSimpleName()});
>    logger.debug("Checking {}.{}", cfs.table.name, cfs.columnFamily);
>    logger.debug("Aborting compaction for dropped CF");
>    logger.debug("No tasks available");
>    logger.debug("Expected bloom filter size : " + expectedBloomFilterSize);
>    logger.debug("Cache flushing was already in progress: skipping {}", writer.getCompactionInfo());
>    {noformat}
>    It is useful to have that in the debug log, but how is any of that useful to users
in query tracing? (it may be useful to trace if a new compaction start or stop, because that
does influence query performance, but those message do not). Also take the following message
logged when a compaction is user
>    interrupted:
>    {noformat}
>    if (t instanceof CompactionInterruptedException)
>    {
>        logger.info(t.getMessage());
>        logger.debug("Full interruption stack trace:", t);
>    }
>    {noformat}
>    I can buy that you may want the first log message in the query tracing, but the second
one is definitively something that only make sense for debug logging but not for query tracing
(and as a side note, the current implementation don't do something sensible as it traces "Full
interruption stack trace:" but completely ignore the throwable).
>    Lastly, and though that's arguably more a detail (but why would we settle for something
good enough if we can do better) I believe that in some cases you want an event to be both
logged at debug and traced but having different messages could make sense. For instance, in
CFS we have
>    {noformat}
>    logger.debug("Snapshot for " + table + " keyspace data file " + ssTable.getFilename()
+ " created in " + snapshotDirectory);
>    {noformat}
>    I'm not convinced that snapshot should be part of query tracing given it doesn't really
have an impact on queries, but even if we do trace it, we probably don't care about having
one event for each snapshoted file (2 events, one for the start of the snapshot, one for the
end would be enough).
>    As it stands, I think query tracing will have a lot of random noises, which will not
only be annoying but I'm also sure will make users spend time worrying about events that have
no impact whatsoever. And I've only looked at the debug message of 2 classes ...
>   ** I also think there could be case where we would want to trace something, but not
have it in the debug log. For instance, it makes sense in the query trace to know how long
parsing the query took. But logging too much info per query like that will make the debug
log unmanageable in many case. And if you say, let's log that at TRACE, you have to put the
TracingAppender at trace and now you get all the junk (junk as far as query tracing is concerned)
that trace logging have.
> # I find it rather unintuitive. Query tracing is enable per query and it writes its trace
in a system table. How come changing some settings in the log4j config file can disable that
feature for me? I agree it's not a big deal, but it does is some form of leaking an implementation
detail.
> # It doesn't seem very future-proof. For instance (and that's only an example), I think
it could make sense to later add a tracing level. I might want a very detailed tracing mode
where I get very fine grained details like what sstable was hit, and how many seeks on that
sstable we did and whatnot. But as said above, using the log4j TRACE level for that is not
convenient because it logs lots of stuff that are completely unrelated to my query.
> And the only advantages of using log4j that I can see is that it that we don't have to
go through all our debug statements to check which ones make sense to also add to query traces.
But as lengthly explained above, that's not a real advantage as it end up generating trace
that are less useful/user friendly as they could be.
> Now maybe there is killer advantages that I don't see, and the goal of this ticket is
to discuss those. But if there isn't, I'm very much in favor of moving from log4j for this.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Mime
View raw message