Denis, Alex,
Sure, new metric will be integrated into new metrics framework.
Let's not expose its value to control.sh right now. I'll create an issue
for aggregated "getMinimumNumberOfPartitionCopies" if everyone agrees.
Best Regards,
Ivan Rakov
On 04.10.2019 20:06, Denis Magda wrote:
I'm for the proposal to add new JMX metrics and enhance the existing
tooling. But I would encourage us to integrate this into the new metrics
framework Nikolay has been working on. Otherwise, we will be deprecating
these JMX metrics in a short time frame in favor of the new monitoring APIs.
-
Denis
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:33 AM Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I agree that we should have the ability to read any metric using simple
Ignite tooling. I am not sure if visor.sh is a good fit - if I
remember correctly, it will start a daemon node which will bump the
topology version with all related consequences. I believe in the long term
it will beneficial to migrate all visor.sh functionality to a more
lightweight protocol, such as used in control.sh.
As for the metrics, the metric suggested by Ivan totally makes sense to me
- it is a simple and, actually, quite critical metric. It will be
completely unusable to select a minimum of some metric for all cache groups
manually. A monitoring system, on the other hand, might not be available
when the metric is needed, or may not support aggregation.
--AG
пт, 4 окт. 2019 г. в 18:58, Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com>:
Nikolay,
Many users start to use Ignite with a small project without
production-level monitoring. When proof-of-concept appears to be viable,
they tend to expand Ignite usage by growing cluster and adding needed
environment (including monitoring systems).
Inability to find such basic thing as survival in case of next node
crash may affect overall product impression. We all want Ignite to be
successful and widespread.
Can you clarify, what do you mean, exactly?
Right now user can access metric mentioned by Alex and choose minimum of
all cache groups. I want to highlight that not every user understands
Ignite and its internals so much to find out that exactly these sequence
of actions will bring him to desired answer.
Can you clarify, what do you mean, exactly?
We have a ticket[1] to support metrics output via visor.sh.
My understanding: we should have an easy way to output metric values
for
each node in cluster.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12191
I propose to add metric method for aggregated
"getMinimumNumberOfPartitionCopies" and expose it to control.sh.
My understanding: it's result is critical enough to be accessible in a
short path. I've started this topic due to request from user list, and
I've heard many similar complaints before.
Best Regards,
Ivan Rakov
On 04.10.2019 17:18, Nikolay Izhikov wrote:
Ivan.
We shouldn't force users to configure external tools and write extra
code for basic things.
Actually, I don't agree with you.
Having external monitoring system for any production cluster is a
*basic* thing.
Can you, please, define "basic things"?
single method for the whole cluster
Can you clarify, what do you mean, exactly?
We have a ticket[1] to support metrics output via visor.sh.
My understanding: we should have an easy way to output metric values
for
each node in cluster.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12191
В Пт, 04/10/2019 в 17:09 +0300, Ivan Rakov пишет:
Max,
What if user simply don't have configured monitoring system?
Knowing whether cluster will survive node shutdown is critical for any
administrator that performs any manipulations with cluster topology.
Essential information should be easily accessed. We shouldn't force
users to configure external tools and write extra code for basic
things.
Alex,
Thanks, that's exact metric we need.
My point is that we should make it more accessible: via control.sh
command and single method for the whole cluster.
Best Regards,
Ivan Rakov
On 04.10.2019 16:34, Alex Plehanov wrote:
Ivan, there already exist metric
CacheGroupMetricsMXBean#getMinimumNumberOfPartitionCopies, which
shows
the
current redundancy level for the cache group.
We can lose up to ( getMinimumNumberOfPartitionCopies-1) nodes
without
data
loss in this cache group.
пт, 4 окт. 2019 г. в 16:17, Ivan Rakov <ivan.glu...@gmail.com>:
Igniters,
I've seen numerous requests to find out an easy way to check whether
is
it safe to turn off cluster node. As we know, in Ignite protection
from
sudden node shutdown is implemented through keeping several backup
copies of each partition. However, this guarantee can be weakened
for
a
while in case cluster has recently experienced node restart and
rebalancing process is still in progress.
Example scenario is restarting nodes one by one in order to update a
local configuration parameter. User restarts one node and
rebalancing
starts: when it will be completed, it will be safe to proceed
(backup
count=1). However, there's no transparent way to determine whether
rebalancing is over.
From my perspective, it would be very helpful to:
1) Add information about rebalancing and number of free-to-go nodes
to
./control.sh --state command.
Examples of output:
Cluster ID: 125a6dce-74b1-4ee7-a453-c58f23f1f8fc
Cluster tag: new_tag
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cluster is active
All partitions are up-to-date.
3 node(s) can safely leave the cluster without partition loss.
Cluster ID: 125a6dce-74b1-4ee7-a453-c58f23f1f8fc
Cluster tag: new_tag
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cluster is active
Rebalancing is in progress.
1 node(s) can safely leave the cluster without partition loss.
2) Provide the same information via ClusterMetrics. For example:
ClusterMetrics#isRebalanceInProgress // boolean
ClusterMetrics#getSafeToLeaveNodesCount // int
Here I need to mention that this information can be calculated from
existing rebalance metrics (see CacheMetrics#*rebalance*). However,
I
still think that we need more simple and understandable flag whether
cluster is in danger of data loss. Another point is that current
metrics
are bound to specific cache, which makes this information even
harder
to
analyze.
Thoughts?
--
Best Regards,
Ivan Rakov
