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 <nizhi...@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 <nizhi...@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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
