kevinrr888 commented on issue #4498: URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues/4498#issuecomment-2102713843
A couple more things that I'm still curious about from my original comment: > So, it appears that the values of 0 are correct, they are just not updated as frequently as they are logged, making it seem like the count of 0 is more frequent than it actually is. Perhaps for this test we could increase the logging time to 5 seconds, or decrease the update time to 1 second so it is more clear in the logs what is actually happening at what time. Should any of the timings be adjusted for this test? Might be confusing not having the log and update intervals be the same. This seemed to be the basis of the original issue - unsure if the FATE metric counts were correct. > One thing I noticed when looking at this, accumulo.fate.ops.in.progress is a sum of all current txns (failed_in_progress, in_progress, new, unknown, successful, failed, and submitted). The "in.progress" may be a bit misleading since the "in.progress" in this case is different from the state "in_progress". Maybe something like accumulo.fate.ops.total or accumulo.fate.ops.current.ops would be clearer? Or maybe this was intended to only include txns that are in_progress? This doesn't seem to apply to accumulo.fate.ops.in.progress.by.type since this only includes those that are in_progress. Should the naming for `accumulo.fate.ops.in.progress` be changed? -- 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. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
