On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:27 PM Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>
wrote:

> I finally found the time to have a look. :-)
>
> The API looks very good! (It's very similar to an API we recently added to
> Flink, which is inspired by the same Codahale/Dropwizard metrics).
>
> About the semantics, the "A", "B" and "C" you mention in the doc: doesn't
> this mean that we have to keep the metrics in some fault-tolerant way?
> Almost in something like the StateInternals, because they should survive
> failures and contain the metrics over the successful runs. (Side note: in
> Flink the metrics are just "since the last restart from failure" in case of
> failures.)
>
> About querying the metrics, what we have mostly seen is that people want to
> integrate metrics into a Metrics system that they already have in place.
> They use Graphite, StatsD or simply JMX for this. In Flink we provide an
> API for reporters that users can plug in to export the metrics to their
> system of choice. I'm sure some people will like the option of having the
> metrics queryable on the PipelineResult but I would assume that for most
> production use cases integration with a metrics system is more important.
>
With Aggregators, the Spark runner samples the aggregated value in
intervals and reports them via Codahale API, and the runner currently
supports GraphiteSink and CsvSink, but it's fairly easy to add more.
This is currently relying on a Spark API that wraps the MetricRegistry and
Reporter, but Beam could easily do the same.
I've raised this issue before, and the feeling back then was that each
runner should use the it's own metric reporting infra. we can revisit
though.

>
> Regarding removal of Aggregators I'm for B, to quote Saint Exupéry:
>   "It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to
> add, but when there is nothing more to remove."
>
> Cheers,
> Aljoscha
>
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 at 20:22 Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 to the new metrics design. I strongly favor B as well.
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Kenneth Knowles
> > <k...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > Correction: In my eagerness to see the end of aggregators, I mistook
> the
> > > intention. Both A and B leave aggregators in place until there is a
> > > replacement. In which case, I am strongly in favor of B. As soon as we
> > can
> > > remove aggregators, I think we should.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:48 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Huzzah! This is IMO a really great change. I agree that we can get
> > >> something in to allow work to continue, and improve the API as we
> learn.
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:20 AM Ben Chambers
> > <bchamb...@google.com.invalid>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 3. One open question is what to do with Aggregators. In the doc I
> > mentioned
> > >>
> > >> that long term I'd like to consider whether we can improve Aggregators
> > to
> > >> be a better fit for the model by supporting windowing and allowing
> them
> > to
> > >> serve as input for future steps. In the interim it's not clear what we
> > >> should do with them. The two obvious (and extreme) options seem to be:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>   Option A: Do nothing, leave aggregators as they are until we
> revisit.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>   Option B: Remove aggregators from the SDK until we revisit.
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to suggest removing Aggregators once the existing runners
> have
> > >> reasonable support for Metrics. Doing so reduces the surface area we
> > need
> > >> to maintain/support and simplifies other changes being made. It will
> > also
> > >> allow us to revisit them from a clean slate.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> +1 to removing aggregators, either of A or B. The new metrics design
> > >> addresses aggregator use cases as well or better.
> > >>
> > >> So A vs B is a choice of whether we have a gap with no aggregator or
> > >> metrics-like functionality. I think that is perhaps a bit of a bummer
> > for
> > >> users, and we will likely port over the runner code for it, so we
> > wouldn't
> > >> want to actually delete it, right? Can we do it in a week or two?
> > >>
> > >> One thing motivating me to do this quickly: Currently the new DoFn
> does
> > >> not have its own implementation of aggregators, but leverages that of
> > >> OldDoFn, so we cannot remove OldDoFn until either (1) new DoFn
> > >> re-implements the aggregator instantiation and worker-side delegation
> > (not
> > >> hard, but it is throwaway code) or (2) aggregators are removed. This
> > >> dependency also makes running the new DoFn directly (required for the
> > state
> > >> API) a bit more annoying.
> > >>
> >
>

Reply via email to