[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4245?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Stephan Ewen updated FLINK-4245:
--------------------------------
Comment: was deleted
(was: 1. As long as we don't have unique operator names you cannot have
collision free operator metrics. Period. I am getting really tired of
explaining this.
2. If you only want to change the naming for JMX I suggest to change the tile
to "JMX naming improvements".
3. Your suggestion regarding the domain goes against JMX best practices. They
should always start with "org.apache.flink".
4. Please provide a reasoning as to the domain changes.
5. Please provide a comparison as to how a operator and task metric would
differ, regarding their domain, tags and ObjectName, based on the current
respective default scope format.
6. In general, using what at one point were called "categories" as keys isn't a
bad idea. Note however that this becomes inconsistent with user-defined groups,
which is the reason we currently only use auto-generated keys.
7. Please provide the use-case regarding [~mdaxini]; i am curious as to what
these changes are supposed to allow.
)
> 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)
