I also pushed what I already have to ReviewBoard: https://reviews.apache.org/r/33019/
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Michael Schenck <[email protected]> wrote: > I have a branch (in Github) on my fork of the repo: > https://github.com/mschenck/aurora/tree/thermos_statsd_state_transitions > > I'm happy to push the patch to ReviewBoard, as well. > > Can you clarify what you mean by "plan"? > > - Michael Schenck > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Bill Farner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I may be going on a tangent from what's in your mind, but i think a means >> to visualize this stuff would be really useful. I can see value in a few >> different distinct, but complementary things: >> >> 1. state flow of instances in a job. This would cover transitions between >> states like PENDING and RUNNING, and what happens after termination (based >> on whether the job is a service, cron, etc) >> >> 2. *plan* for Processes in a task, as followed by thermos. This would be >> handy to see that parallel/sequential invocations are as you expect. >> >> 3. plan *execution* of processes in a task, as executed thus far by >> thermos. Sounds like this is what you described above, so this would be a >> yet-to-finish view of (2). >> >> As for your approach thus far, the apache mail server seems to eat >> attachments, so you'll probably be better off posting a diff to our >> ReviewBoard, or pushing a branch to github for folks to peek at. >> >> >> -=Bill >> >> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Michael Schenck <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I need to be able to plot state transitions from a Job-level at bare >> > minimum. I've put together a patch to thermos-observer (attached: >> > thermos-statsd.patch). >> > >> > Now, I understand that the Observer is likely to be going away, so I was >> > thinking about creating a similar patch for the executor, possibly for >> > possibly in ThermosTaskRunner.compute_status >> > < >> https://github.com/mschenck/aurora/blob/master/src/main/python/apache/aurora/executor/thermos_task_runner.py#L183-L205 >> >. >> > My last thought would be to include a Process that *tails* the >> checkpoint >> > log similarly to the Observer. >> > >> > What is the preferred approach to accomplishing this goal? >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Michael Schenck >> > >> > >
