Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
[SPARK-5847] Allow for namespacing metrics by conf params other than spark.app.id - #4632
[SPARK-5847] Allow for namespacing metrics by conf params other than spark.app.id#4632ryan-williams wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
SparkQA
commented
Feb 16, 2015
Test build #27578 has finished for PR 4632 at commit
|
ryan-williams
commented
Feb 16, 2015
scala style check should pass now |
SparkQA
commented
Feb 16, 2015
Test build #27581 has finished for PR 4632 at commit
|
00df060 to
64a7eeeCompareryan-williams
commented
Feb 27, 2015
This one is ready for review, I think |
SparkQA
commented
Feb 27, 2015
Test build #28076 has finished for PR 4632 at commit
|
ryan-williams
commented
Mar 17, 2015
bump, @pwendell any ideas who would be a good reviewer for this? This is a pretty important piece of my |
pwendell
commented
Mar 21, 2015
Hey @JoshRosen can probably take a look at this. One thing though, IIRC the reason why we have a unique ID here is because some sets of users requested the exact opposite behavior as what you want: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-3377 If we do decide to allow this, I think it's best to have a specific set of naming schemes (don't give them a latch to chose an arbitrary conf), in order to limit the surface area of possible configurations. I'm also not so sure about the right way to do this in terms of the current MetricsConfing infrastructure. It seems a bit weird to hard code handling of this particular configuration in the MetricsConfig class. Only had time to take a quick look though and I'm not familiar with that code at all. |
ryan-williams
commented
Mar 23, 2015
Thanks @pwendell. I had stumbled across that SPARK-3377 work as well. I think there are solid arguments for each of these use-cases being supported:
Here are three options for supporting both (all defaulting to
I feel like doing this via the
This bit I disagree with; plenty of config params are {read by, relevant to} just one class. |
dajac
commented
May 12, 2015
Hey @pwendell and @JoshRosen, what is the status on this? I would like to monitor all my recurrent jobs and having fixed set of metrics which doesn't change between two executions would make it way easier. |
andrewor14
commented
Sep 2, 2015
srowen
commented
Sep 2, 2015
I have little knowledge of the metrics system. I can appreciate the overhead of yet another config flag, and can also see how you might want to monitor apps by instance (ID) or class (name) so to speak. The change here seems like a fairly uninvasive version, as you can only name an existing property to draw the value from, and it defaults to current behavior. I can see the argument for limiting it further to "id" or "name" only. I expect the downside are new bugs: my metrics failed because my app name is It seems plausible to me, even if I feel like I don't know enough to review. |
64a7eee to
578162bCompareSparkQA
commented
Sep 14, 2015
Test build #42437 has finished for PR 4632 at commit
|
previously always namespaced metrics with app ID; now metrics- config-file can specify a different Spark conf param to use, e.g. app name.
578162b to
7d0204eCompareSparkQA
commented
Sep 14, 2015
Test build #42444 has finished for PR 4632 at commit
|
ryan-williams
commented
Sep 14, 2015
I'm not sure how to figure out what test failed from the Jenkins output here https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/42444/consoleFull all I see is at the end and what looks like many passing tests |
paulbes
commented
Nov 4, 2015
Being able to configure a fixed set of metrics names is something we are also interested in, what is the progress on this work? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
since you're touching this... for (
vanzin
commented
Nov 6, 2015
retest this please |
vanzin
commented
Nov 6, 2015
Does |
SparkQA
commented
Nov 6, 2015
Test build #45193 has finished for PR 4632 at commit
|
iteratec-hh
commented
Nov 10, 2015
I'm also very interested in this config-param! I'm looking forward to get this in next release :) |
rxin
commented
Dec 31, 2015
I'm going to close this pull request. If this is still relevant and you are interested in pushing it forward, please open a new pull request. Thanks! |
No description provided.