[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2006?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15401521#comment-15401521
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on STORM-2006:
---------------------------------------

Github user HeartSaVioR commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1595
  
    @harshach 
    The wish-list contains ideas/opinions in discussions on user@ and also 
dev@. 
    
    
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/storm-user/201604.mbox/%3CCAF5108iwhGgae7Z2AKgMVNP4PWwV52GVc7Ex5h2oQ7fAAPX2PA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
    
    I've initiated discussions several times for this, so I'm sure what 
@abhishekagarwal87 sorted out is enough set of wish-list for new metrics 
feature.
    
    Btw, we didn't use wiki for such purpose, so it might be better to talk 
about the format, the process, and so on. If we just want to have a page 
without specific format, I'll move this to wiki page once I granted write 
access to wiki.


> Storm metrics feature improvement: support per-worker level metrics 
> aggregation
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: STORM-2006
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2006
>             Project: Apache Storm
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: storm-core
>    Affects Versions: 1.1.0
>            Reporter: Jungtaek Lim
>            Assignee: Jungtaek Lim
>
> Storm provides per-task level metrics which could be huge when topology has a 
> number of tasks. 
> Task level metric is useful for determining load balance between tasks, but 
> it doesn't need to be time-series fashion.
> Before introducing topology level component like TopologyMaster for JStorm, 
> we can utilize SystemBolt to aggregate task level metrics to per-worker level 
> metrics.
> We should provide options and this feature should be turned off by default to 
> keep backward compatibility. 



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

Reply via email to