[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4245?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15387772#comment-15387772
]
Stephan Ewen commented on FLINK-4245:
-------------------------------------
An added benefit of that would be that, regardless of the defined scope format,
JMX names never have collisions.
So, we would never have collision warnings using the JMX reporter.
> Metric naming improvements
> --------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-4245
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4245
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Stephan Ewen
>
> A metric currently has two parts to it:
> - The name of that particular metric
> - The "scope" (or namespace), defined by the group that contains the metric.
> A metric group actually always implicitly has a map of naming "tags", like:
> - taskmanager_host : <some-hostname>
> - taskmanager_id : <id>
> - task_name : "map() -> filter()"
> We derive the scope from that map, following the defined scope formats.
> For JMX (and some users that use JMX), it would be natural to expose that map
> of tags. Some users reconstruct that map by parsing the metric scope. JMX, we
> can expose a metric like:
> - domain: "taskmanager.task.operator.io"
> - name: "numRecordsIn"
> - tags: { "hostname" -> "localhost", "operator_name" -> "map() at
> X.java:123", ... }
> For many other reporters, the formatted scope makes a lot of sense, since
> they think only in terms of (scope, metric-name).
> We may even have the formatted scope in JMX as well (in the domain), if we
> want to go that route.
> [~jgrier] and [~Zentol] - what do you think about that?
> [~mdaxini] Does that match your use of the metrics?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
