simonbence opened a new pull request #4839:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/4839


   _Note: this review is a successor of [PR 
4821](https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/4821). In order to keep the changes 
readable I decided to abandon that one and start a fresh pull request._
   
   This would be a proposal for having persistent status history for both 
component and node level metrics. I decided to approach the question using 
`QuestDB` which is an embeddable time series database written in Java. During 
my tests, the performance and the memory footprint are looked reasonable.
   
   As for code organisation of the new implementation I worked with three 
concepts: repository is the top level entity, provides the service for the 
clients (`FlowController`, etc.). In general, this is the same as before, with 
minor changes (the name has been changed to `StatusHistoryRepostiory` to server 
the intent better, also start and stop hooks were added). The storage classes 
are part of the repositories and are responsible for manage the details of a 
given type, like processor status, node status, etc. Finally the 
`WriterTemplates` and `ReaderTemplates` are merely helpers exist to deal with 
`QuestDB` API calls.
   
   Some remarks on design decisions:
   
   - The PR contains a small fix on 
ProcessGroupStatusDescriptor#calculateTaskMillis(): previously every subsequent 
level makes a nano->milli conversion, which accumulates, reducing the task time 
in children groups into 0. Now this should be fixed (The QuestDB tests are 
implicitly proves this as well)
   - Configuration contains the new parameters but they are commented out. 
These are relevant for the QuestDB implementation and if not used the 
implementation will go with default values. At this point I think, the 
VolatileComponentStatusRepository should be kept as default implementation
   - The implementation depends on the latest of the 4.X version of QuestDB. 
Currently QuestDB is at 5.0.5, but the 5.X line depends on Java 11. There are 
some non vital features in 5.X (all_tables request, dropping partition using 
WHERE closure), but these are not unavoidable for us.
   - QuestDB can be called using `PostrgeSQL` driver via `JDBC` if it is not 
embedded. Also it provides supports `InfluxDB` protocol. These are 
possibilities were not utilised: QuestDB's own API seems to be sufficient and 
robust for our purposes.
   
   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]


Reply via email to