flink-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chesnay Schepler (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (FLINK-4245) Metric naming improvements
Date Thu, 21 Jul 2016 16:17:20 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4245?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15387967#comment-15387967
] 

Chesnay Schepler commented on FLINK-4245:
-----------------------------------------

1. As long as we don't have unique operator names you cannot have collision free operator
metrics. Period. I am getting really tired of explaining this.
2. If you only want to change the naming for JMX I suggest to change the tile to "JMX naming
improvements".
3. Your suggestion regarding the domain goes against JMX best practices. They should always
start with "org.apache.flink".
4. Please provide a reasoning as to the domain changes.
5. Please provide a comparison as to how a operator and task metric would differ, (domain
and tags) that include all tags that are defined in the current default scope formats.
6. In general, using what at one point were called "categories" as keys isn't a bad idea.
Note however that this becomes inconsistent with user-defined groups, which is the reason
we currently only use auto-generated keys.
7. Please provide the use-case regarding [~mdaxini]; i am curious as to what these changes
are supposed to allow.



> Metric naming improvements
> --------------------------
>
>                 Key: FLINK-4245
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4245
>             Project: Flink
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Stephan Ewen
>
> A metric currently has two parts to it:
>   - The name of that particular metric
>   - The "scope" (or namespace), defined by the group that contains the metric.
> A metric group actually always implicitly has a map of naming "tags", like:
>   - taskmanager_host : <some-hostname>
>   - taskmanager_id : <id>
>   - task_name : "map() -> filter()"
> We derive the scope from that map, following the defined scope formats.
> For JMX (and some users that use JMX), it would be natural to expose that map of tags.
Some users reconstruct that map by parsing the metric scope. JMX, we can expose a metric like:
>   - domain: "taskmanager.task.operator.io"
>   - name: "numRecordsIn"
>   - tags: { "hostname" -> "localhost", "operator_name" -> "map() at X.java:123",
... }
> For many other reporters, the formatted scope makes a lot of sense, since they think
only in terms of (scope, metric-name).
> We may even have the formatted scope in JMX as well (in the domain), if we want to go
that route. 
> [~jgrier] and [~Zentol] - what do you think about that?
> [~mdaxini] Does that match your use of the metrics?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message