[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1332?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13997807#comment-13997807
]
Benjamin Mahler commented on MESOS-1332:
----------------------------------------
The namespacing idea actually came up in conversations with [~benjaminhindman]
and [~kevints] when we were looking at how some of Twitter's JVM based metric
libraries deal with Metrics in tests (avoiding naming collisions when a
component is brought up multiple times in-memory).
I also felt that "frameworks_active" is a bit unintuitive to read compared with
"tasks_running" despite being of the same form, but I couldn't quite put my
finger on why that is.
Looking forward a bit, In the face of an ever growing number of metrics being
exposed, there does seem to be value in consistently using a prefix where
applicable to group related metrics: "frameworks_(in)active",
"slaves_(in)active", "offers_outstanding", "tasks_\*", "messages_\*", ...
In the registrar, "state_store", "state_fetch", and "registry_size_bytes"
embody this principle nicely as well, but "queued_operations" would be more
aptly named as "operations_queued".
Does this seem reasonable to everybody? If so, let's follow up with separate
reviews from the ones currently outstanding.
> Improve Master and Slave metric names
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: MESOS-1332
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1332
> Project: Mesos
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: master, slave
> Reporter: Dominic Hamon
> Assignee: Dominic Hamon
>
> As we move the metrics to a new endpoint, we should consider revisiting the
> names of some of the current metrics to make them clearer.
> It may also be worth considering changing some existing counter-style metrics
> to gauges.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
