ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [IEP-35] Monitoring & Profiling. Phase 2
Date Fri, 06 Sep 2019 12:19:50 GMT
Hello, Igniters.

IEP-35. Monitoring&Profiling. Phase2 is ready [1]
Please, join to the review!

I've implemented:

* Monitoring list engine.
* Following list implemented:
    * Cache list
    * Cache group list
    * Compute task list
    * Service list.

Engine details:

* `MonitoringList` added to store list data.
* Base interface `MonitoringRow` for list data created.
* Corresponding method added to `MetricExporterSpi`
* `JmxMetricExporterSpi`, `SqlViewExporterSpi`, `LogExporterSpi` updated to
support list export.
* JMX, SQL and other column-oriented SPI uses
`MonitoringRowAttributeWalker` to quickly traverse all list row attributes.
* Implementation of `MonitoringRowAttributeWalkerfor specificMonitoringRow`
can be generated with `MonitoringRowAttributeWalkerGenerator`

I prepare follow-up PR [2], also.
Following lists implemented:

* SQL tables
* SQL indexes
* SQL schemas
* SQL queries
* Continuous queries
* Text queries
* Transactions
* Cluster nodes
* Client connections(JDBC, ODBC, Thin)

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6845
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6790



пн, 10 июн. 2019 г. в 13:49, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org>:

> Hello, Igniters.
>
> Since Phase 1 will be merged in master soon I've created the ticket [1]
> for Phase 2.
>
> Scope of Phase 2(copy-paste from the ticket)
>
> Ability to collect lists of some internal object Ignite manage.
> Examples of such objects:
>
>   * Caches
>   * Queries (including continuous queries)
>   * Services
>   * Compute tasks
>   * Distributed Data Structures
>   * etc...
>
>
> 1. Fields for each list(that doesn't currently exists in Ignite) will be
> discussed in separate tickets
> 2. Metric Exporters (optionally) can support list export.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11905
>
>
> В Вт, 14/05/2019 в 16:42 +0300, Nikolay Izhikov пишет:
> > Ticket for IEP.Phase1 created -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11848
> >
> >
> > В Пн, 13/05/2019 в 18:06 +0300, Nikolay Izhikov пишет:
> > > Hello, Igniters.
> > >
> > > We have discussed this IEP [1] with Alexey Goncharyuk, Anton
> Vinogradov, Andrey Gura, Alexey Scherbakov and Pavel Kovalenko.
> > >
> > > Issues to address:
> > >
> > > 1. Study experience of following libs, tools:
> > >     * OpenTracing
> > >     * OpenSensus
> > >     * DropWizard
> > >
> > > 2. Support histogram sensor: Sensor that collects values that gets
> into predefined segments
> > >
> > > 3. Use more widely used naming(like in OpenSensus?)
> > >
> > > 4. Consider the usage of OpenSensus as a default implementation for
> local metric storage.
> > >
> > > 5. To measure the performance penalty for metrics for 5_000 caches.
> > >
> > > 6. Some metrics should be part of public API and others are not(may be
> changed/removed in release without warnings).
> > >
> > > My plan for Phase #1 is the following:
> > >
> > > 1. Address the issues.
> > > 2. Prepare public API
> > > 3. Prepare PR for monitoring subsystem + existing metrics rewritten
> with it.
> > > 4. Prepare a PR with lists of each user API.
> > > 5. Collect feedback for a #4.
> > > 6. Design a log exposer. Consider the usage of JFR format or some
> other widely used, tool compatible format.
> > >
> > > [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=112820392
> > >
> > > В Чт, 02/05/2019 в 14:02 +0300, Nikolay Izhikov пишет:
> > > > Hello, Maxim.
> > > >
> > > > > How will be recorded throughput sensor values which will require
> an interval for the rate calculations?
> > > >
> > > > I answered to this question in IEP "Design principles":
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > > Sensors should contain only raw values. No aggregation of numeric
> metrics on Ignite side.
> > > > Min, max, avg and other functions are the matter of an external
> monitoring system.
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > Throughput is a function `(S(t2) - S(t1))/(t2-t1)`
> > > > where S(t) is the sensor value in some point of time t.
> > > >
> > > > Seems, throughput calculation is a responsibility of an external
> system.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > > It seems to me that we can add an additional parameter of
> `sensitivityLevel` to provide for the user a flexible sensor control (e.g.,
> INFO, WARN, NOTICE, DEBUG).
> > > >
> > > > For now, I think that all sensors and lists will be very(very!)
> lightweight.
> > > > So, we should be able to disable/enable it's, for sure.
> > > >
> > > > But, we should turn off and turn on the whole Ignite subsystem
> > > > for the case we have strong performance limitations for a particular
> workload.
> > > >
> > > > So, we have two "level" of monitoring - INFO and DEBUG(for
> profiling: IEP-35 - Phase 3).
> > > > For example, AFAIK we can't disable current SQL system views(Why
> should we?)
> > > >
> > > > В Вт, 30/04/2019 в 14:33 +0300, Maxim Muzafarov пишет:
> > > > > Hello Nikolay,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've looked through your PRs changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sensors
> > > > >
> > > > > How will be recorded throughput sensor values which will require
an
> > > > > interval for the rate calculations? Do we have such an example? For
> > > > > instance, getAllocationRate() or getEvictionRate(). These metrics
> are
> > > > > out of the scope of current PoC and IEP as they are not related to
> the
> > > > > user metrics, but it is a good example of a particular metric type.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems to me that we can add an additional parameter of
> > > > > `sensitivityLevel` to provide for the user a flexible sensor
> control
> > > > > (e.g., INFO, WARN, NOTICE, DEBUG).
> > > > >
> > > > > It also seems that for the sensors getValue() the completely
> > > > > functional java approach can be used. Am I right?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 11:44, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the feedback!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > HttpExposer with Jetty's dependencies should be detached>
from
> the core module.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agreed. module hierarchy is the essence of the next steps.
> > > > > > For now it just a proof of my ideas for Ignite monitoring we
can
> discuss.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I like your approach with 'wrapper' for monitored objects,
> like don't like using 'ServiceConfiguration' directly as a monitored object
> for services
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agreed in general.
> > > > > > Seems, choosing the right data to expose is the matter of
> separate discussion for each Ignite entities.
> > > > > > I've planned to file tickets for each entity so anyone
> interested can share his vision in it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In my opinion, each sensor should have a timestamp.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure that *every* sensor should have directly associated
> timestamp.
> > > > > > Seems, we should support sensors without timestamp for a current
> monitoring numbers at least.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, it'd be great to have an ability to store a list
of a
> fixed size> of last N sensors
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What use-cases do you know for such sensors?
> > > > > > We have plans to support fixed size lists to show "Last N SQL
> queries" or similar data.
> > > > > > Essentially, a sensor is just a single value with the name and
> known meaning.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It'd be great if you provide a more extended test to show
the
> work of> the system.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, for that :)
> > > > > > When you run 'MonitoringSelfTest' you should open
> http://localhost:8080/ignite/monitoring to view exposed info.
> > > > > > I provide this info in gist -
> https://gist.github.com/nizhikov/aa1e6222e6a3456472b881b8deb0e24d
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will extend this test to print results to console in the next
> iterations - stay tuned :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > В Вс, 28/04/2019 в 23:35 +0300, Vyacheslav Daradur пишет:
> > > > > > > Hi, Nikolay,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I looked through PR and IEP, and I have some comments:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It would be better to implement it as a separate module,
I
> can't say
> > > > > > > if it is possible for the main part of monitoring or not,
but I
> > > > > > > believe that HttpExposer with Jetty's dependencies should
be
> detached
> > > > > > > from the core module.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I like your approach with 'wrapper' for monitored objects,
like
> > > > > > > 'ComputeTaskInfo' in PR, and don't like using
> 'ServiceConfiguration'
> > > > > > > directly as a monitored object for services. I believe
we
> shouldn't
> > > > > > > mix approaches. It'd be better always use some kind of
> container with
> > > > > > > monitored object's information to work with such data.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In my opinion, each sensor should have a timestamp. Usually
> monitoring
> > > > > > > systems aggregate data and build graphics according to
sensors
> > > > > > > timestamp.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, it'd be great to have an ability to store a list
of a
> fixed size
> > > > > > > of last N sensors, not to miss them without pushing to
an
> external
> > > > > > > monitoring system.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It'd be great if you provide a more extended test to show
the
> work of
> > > > > > > the system. Everybody who looks to PR needs to run the
test
> and get
> > > > > > > the info manually to see the completeness of sensors, this
> might be
> > > > > > > simplified by proper test.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:56 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhikov@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've prepared Proof of Concept for IEP-35 [1]
> > > > > > > > PR can be found here -
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6510
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've done following changes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         1. `GridMonitoringManager`  [2] - simple
> implementation of manager to store all monitoring info
> > > > > > > >         2. `HttpPullExposerSpi` [3] - pull exposer
> implementation that can respond with JSON from
> http://localhost:8080/ignite/monitoring. JSON content can be veiwed in
> gist [4]
> > > > > > > >         3. Compute task start and finish monitoring
in
> "compute" list [5]
> > > > > > > >         4. Service registration are monitored in "service"
> list - [6]
> > > > > > > >         5. Current `IgniteSpiMBeanAdapter` rewritten
using
> `GridMonitoringManager` [7]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Design principles, monitoring subsystem details and
new
> Ignite entities can be found in IEP [1].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My next steps will be:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         1. Implementation of JMX exposer
> > > > > > > >         2. Registration of all "lists" and "sensor
groups"
> as a SQL System view.
> > > > > > > >         3. Add monitoring for all unmonitoring Ignite
API.
> (described in IEP).
> > > > > > > >         4. Rewrite existing jmx metrics using
> GridMonitoringManager.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please, share you thoughts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Part of JSON file:
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > >     "COMPUTE": {
> > > > > > > >       "tasks": {
> > > > > > > >         "name": "tasks",
> > > > > > > >         "rows": [
> > > > > > > >           {
> > > > > > > >             "id": "0798817a-eeec-4386-9af7-94edb39ffced",
> > > > > > > >             "sessionId":
> "a1814f95a61-912451ff-ca7b-4764-a7fd-728f6a900000",
> > > > > > > >             "data": {
> > > > > > > >               "taskClasName":
> "org.apache.ignite.monitoring.MonitoringSelfTest$$Lambda$145/1500885480",
> > > > > > > >               "startTime": 1556287337944,
> > > > > > > >               "timeout": 9223372036854776000,
> > > > > > > >               "execName": null
> > > > > > > >             },
> > > > > > > >             "name": "anotherBroadcast"
> > > > > > > >           }
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=112820392
> > > > > > > > [2]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6510/files#diff-ec7d5cf5e35b99303deb9accee153c50R34
> > > > > > > > [3]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6510/files#diff-32239c45e0ae3b692af2eae7078e1436R47
> > > > > > > > [4]
> https://gist.github.com/nizhikov/aa1e6222e6a3456472b881b8deb0e24d
> > > > > > > > [5]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6510/files#diff-d651ed29d07bd0c5ce291654a3254cc0R749
> > > > > > > > [6]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6510/files#diff-0b4e54fbda2b0da1c10eff48416336f6R1606
> > > > > > > > [7]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6510/files#diff-4398bf118150500e059069b3a1638ec7R61
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message