[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-937?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14626756#comment-14626756
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-937:
--------------------------------------

Github user d2r commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/631#discussion_r34597439
  
    --- Diff: 
storm-core/src/jvm/backtype/storm/utils/StormBoundedExponentialBackoffRetry.java
 ---
    @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ public StormBoundedExponentialBackoffRetry(int 
baseSleepTimeMs, int maxSleepTime
             expRetriesThreshold = 1;
             while ((1 << (expRetriesThreshold + 1)) < ((maxSleepTimeMs - 
baseSleepTimeMs) / 2))
                 expRetriesThreshold++;
    -        LOG.info("The baseSleepTimeMs [" + baseSleepTimeMs + "] the 
maxSleepTimeMs [" + maxSleepTimeMs + "] " +
    +        LOG.debug("The baseSleepTimeMs [" + baseSleepTimeMs + "] the 
maxSleepTimeMs [" + maxSleepTimeMs + "] " +
    --- End diff --
    
    It would be nice to use the parameterized call, so that Strings are not 
constructed unnecessarily:
    
    ```Java
    Log.debug("The baseSleepTimeMs [{}] ... ", baseSleepTimeMs, ...);
    ```


> StormBoundedExponentialBackoffRetry too noisy, lower log level
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: STORM-937
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-937
>             Project: Apache Storm
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Reza Farivar
>            Assignee: Reza Farivar
>            Priority: Minor
>
> The supervisor logs are currently overpopulated with log messages similar to 
> this: 
> 2015-07-10 18:12:06.723 b.s.u.StormBoundedExponentialBackoffRetry [INFO] The 
> baseSleepTimeMs [2000] the maxSleepTimeMs [60000] the maxRetries [5]
> The log level in the StormBoundedExponentialBackoffRetry is currently at info 
> level. It seems it can be safely lowered to debug.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to