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] [Updated] (FLINK-4245) Metric naming improvements
Date Thu, 21 Jul 2016 21:51:20 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4245?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Chesnay Schepler updated FLINK-4245:
------------------------------------
    Component/s: Metrics

> Metric naming improvements
> --------------------------
>
>                 Key: FLINK-4245
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4245
>             Project: Flink
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Metrics
>            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