[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14045?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16678285#comment-16678285
]
Weiwei Yang commented on HDFS-14045:
------------------------------------
{quote}It would be helpful to add the NameService / NameNode ID into the name
of the metric, then an operator can easily see the performance of each.
{quote}
Same feeling. But I doubt if we achieve that under current metrics framework.
If not, can we step back and just to log the latency for active namenode? On
the other side, can we add similar metrics at NN side to measure the latency of
these RPC calls?
> Use different metrics in DataNode to better measure latency of
> heartbeat/blockReports/incrementalBlockReports of Active/Standby NN
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-14045
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-14045
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: datanode
> Reporter: Jiandan Yang
> Assignee: Jiandan Yang
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-14045.001.patch, HDFS-14045.002.patch,
> HDFS-14045.003.patch, HDFS-14045.004.patch
>
>
> Currently DataNode uses same metrics to measure rpc latency of NameNode, but
> Active and Standby usually have different performance at the same time,
> especially in large cluster. For example, rpc latency of Standby is very long
> when Standby is catching up editlog. We may misunderstand the state of HDFS.
> Using different metrics for Active and standby can help us obtain more
> precise metric data.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
