I've attached an alternative patch to the JIRA with your suggestions - thanks again for the feedback! I think it's much simpler now.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Mostafa Elhemali < mostafa.elhem...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback Luke. You make a good case - to be honest I shyed > away from modifying the default implementation since I figured it's better > to leave existing functionality as is, but you're right that being forced > to choose an implementation (on-demand vs. periodic) can get annoying. Let > me try out that approach and either post an alternative patch to the JIRA > or report back on why I failed. > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Luke Lu <l...@vicaya.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for the heads up Mostafa. I've added commment/questions on the >> JIRA. >> The main concern is that now you have to decide what metrics system to use >> depending on the process is long running or not. Why not just enhance the >> existing metrics system itself to support on-demand publishing? So that >> you >> can use the same metrics system for all processes? We all know a >> short-lived process can live longer than expected and periodic metrics >> from >> that process can provide insights on what's going on, which is the main >> purpose of the metrics system. >> >> __Luke >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Mostafa Elhemali < >> mostafa.elhem...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> > Yesterday I filed a JIRA >> > (HADOOP-9090<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-9090>) >> > to propose a refactoring of the MetricsSystemImpl class - the default >> > (only?) implementation of the Metrics2 system - to factor out some >> common >> > code in a base class and have another simple implementation that just >> does >> > on-demand publishing of metrics instead of the default periodic >> publishing. >> > The main motivation for filing this JIRA and the attached patch is that >> we >> > (Microsoft) have a need to publish metrics out of short-lived processes >> > (think "hadoop fs -ls") and the periodic behavior of the default >> > implementation doesn't really work well for those. We could write our >> own >> > metrics system implementation (and we'll probably do that in the short >> > term) but that would mean duplicating a lot of great code that's >> already in >> > the MetricsSystemImpl class, hence the proposal to factor out the common >> > code into a base class. >> > >> > Does that sound reasonable? Please comment on the JIRA directly or reply >> > here - if the proposal sounds awful (or great) or there's something I'm >> > fundamentally missing I'd love to hear that feedback. >> > >> > Thanks! >> > Mostafa >> > >> > >
