The per-process stats have never been very useful to us (since they don't
work for docker), however, even being able to see the processes that are
running, how many times they've restarted, when they launched, etc is
invaluable.

I think there would be big pushback from users if they were to lose the
functionality it provided currently (beyond log viewing).

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Erb, Stephan <stephan....@blue-yonder.com>
wrote:

> From an operator and Aurora developer perspective, it would be really
> great to get rid of the thermos observer quickly.
>
> However, from a user perspective the usability gap between observer and
> plain Mesos sandbox browsing is quite large right now. I agree with
> Benjamin here that it would probably work if we generate html pages ready
> for user consumption.
>
> These are the relevant tickets in our tracker:
> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-725
> * https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-777
>
> ________________________________________
> From: ben...@gmail.com <ben...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 02:35
> To: dev@aurora.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Are we ready to remove the observer?
>
> Is there any chance we can keep the per-process cpu and ram utilization
> stats?  That's one of the coolest things about aurora, imo.  The executor
> is already writing those checkpoints inside the mesos sandbox (I think?),
> so perhaps it could also produce the html pages that the observer currently
> renders?
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:33 PM Zhitao Li <zhitaoli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Bill Farner <wfar...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Assuming that the vast majority of utility provided by the observer is
> > > sandbox/log browsing - can we remove it and link to sandbox browsing
> that
> > > mesos provides?
> > >
> > > The rest of the information could be (or already is) logged in the
> > sandbox
> > > for the rare debugging scenarios that call for it.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Zhitao Li
> >
>

Reply via email to