[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14869?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15039738#comment-15039738
]
Lars Hofhansl commented on HBASE-14869:
---------------------------------------
Cool. Metric name's the only open issue. If nobody else chimes in, I'm good
committing.
Maybe [~vik.karma] can report how hard it was to make sense of these new metric
in the automated scripts.
In the end any naming is probably fine. The main part I wasn't sure about was
the "greater than X" naming.
Recall this scheme: "Get_0-1", "Get_1-3", "Get_10-30" , etc, and "Get_>600000"
> Better request latency histograms
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-14869
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14869
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Brainstorming
> Reporter: Lars Hofhansl
> Assignee: Vikas Vishwakarma
> Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.3.0, 0.98.17
>
> Attachments: 14869-test-0.98.txt, 14869-v1-0.98.txt,
> 14869-v1-2.0.txt, 14869-v2-0.98.txt, 14869-v2-2.0.txt, 14869-v3-0.98.txt,
> 14869-v4-0.98.txt, 14869-v5-0.98.txt, AppendSizeTime.png, Get.png
>
>
> I just discussed this with a colleague.
> The get, put, etc, histograms that each region server keeps are somewhat
> useless (depending on what you want to achieve of course), as they are
> aggregated and calculated by each region server.
> It would be better to record the number of requests in certainly latency
> bands in addition to what we do now.
> For example the number of gets that took 0-5ms, 6-10ms, 10-20ms, 20-50ms,
> 50-100ms, 100-1000ms, > 1000ms, etc. (just as an example, should be
> configurable).
> That way we can do further calculations after the fact, and answer questions
> like: How often did we miss our SLA? Percentage of requests that missed an
> SLA, etc.
> Comments?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
