simonbence opened a new pull request #4420: URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/4420
[NIFI-7429](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-7429) This is a proposal for having historical data about the NiFi node’s status appearing in the NiFi UI. The main purpose was to provide a simple tool makes it possible to check basic performance metrics on the UI. From implementation perspective the solution is based on the existing status history function which was applied for components like processors. In front end side, the existing code is reused as much as possible, only some minor extension and duplication were needed. The main differences compared to the existing uses were the different trigger (this is reachable from the global menu) and the lack of some parameters like id or group. The backend side builds on top of VolatileComponentStatusRepository which already responsible for such functions. I tried to add is as an integral part of the existing metric collection, so the frequency of the measurements and the way of triggering is not separated. The metrics themselves are distilled from the SystemDiagnostics and the already collected GarbageCollectionStatus. Creating the snapshots came with three non-trivial cases I would like to highlight: 1. The GC metrics are not predefined as the type of GC is depending on the running environment and on the actual collectors. This prevented pre-defining the descriptors for them, thus these are created during requests. 2. Also, some GC metrics (time spent, counters) are growing in monotonous way as the metric collection stores the value shows the accumulated value from the start of the instance. In order to be able to provide the increment since the last measurement, the collection of the GC metrics are using the previous snapshot as baseline. 3. The processor load average (usually in the form of “2.3” or alike) does not fit into the “long” format used by the functionality without significant information loss. In order to avoid bigger refactors, I introduced a new formatter type, named “FRACTION”. By convention the server side multiplies these metrics using a predefined number (1_000_000 for now) and during visualisation the frontend divides the metric value with the same number. By this, we shift the relevant digits into long value range. Of course, this still comes with precision loss, but for visualisation purposes, this looks sufficient. Thank you for your time and response! In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you to ensure the following steps have been taken: ### For all changes: - [ ] Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is it referenced in the commit message? - [ ] Does your PR title start with **NIFI-XXXX** where XXXX is the JIRA number you are trying to resolve? Pay particular attention to the hyphen "-" character. - [ ] Has your PR been rebased against the latest commit within the target branch (typically `main`)? - [ ] Is your initial contribution a single, squashed commit? _Additional commits in response to PR reviewer feedback should be made on this branch and pushed to allow change tracking. Do not `squash` or use `--force` when pushing to allow for clean monitoring of changes._ ### For code changes: - [ ] Have you ensured that the full suite of tests is executed via `mvn -Pcontrib-check clean install` at the root `nifi` folder? - [ ] Have you written or updated unit tests to verify your changes? - [ ] Have you verified that the full build is successful on JDK 8? - [ ] Have you verified that the full build is successful on JDK 11? - [ ] If adding new dependencies to the code, are these dependencies licensed in a way that is compatible for inclusion under [ASF 2.0](http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a)? - [ ] If applicable, have you updated the `LICENSE` file, including the main `LICENSE` file under `nifi-assembly`? - [ ] If applicable, have you updated the `NOTICE` file, including the main `NOTICE` file found under `nifi-assembly`? - [ ] If adding new Properties, have you added `.displayName` in addition to .name (programmatic access) for each of the new properties? ### For documentation related changes: - [ ] Have you ensured that format looks appropriate for the output in which it is rendered? ### Note: Please ensure that once the PR is submitted, you check GitHub Actions CI for build issues and submit an update to your PR as soon as possible. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
