HDDS-9522. Add percentile for ProtocolMessageMetrics#6681
HDDS-9522. Add percentile for ProtocolMessageMetrics#6681YuanbenWang wants to merge 2 commits intoapache:masterfrom
Conversation
|
@whbing Hello~! Could you plz help review this pr? |
| private final Map<KEY, AtomicLong> elapsedTimes = | ||
| new ConcurrentHashMap<>(); | ||
|
|
||
| private final Map<KEY, MutableQuantiles[]> quantiles = |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See #7392 / HDDS-11642, MutableQuantiles objects need to be stopped explicitly.
jojochuang
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mostly good just two comments
| if (quantileEnable) { | ||
| MetricsRegistry registry = | ||
| new MetricsRegistry(value.toString() + "MessageMetrics"); | ||
| MutableQuantiles[] mutableQuantiles = | ||
| new MutableQuantiles[intervals.length]; | ||
| quantiles.put(value, mutableQuantiles); | ||
| for (int i = 0; i < intervals.length; i++) { | ||
| mutableQuantiles[i] = registry.newQuantiles( | ||
| intervals[i] + "s", | ||
| value.toString() + "rpc time in milli second", | ||
| "ops", "latencyMs", intervals[i]); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please add tests to cover these new lines.
|
/pending review comments |
3374c08 to
3b796c5
Compare
|
Thank you very much for the patch. I am closing this PR temporarily as there was no activity recently and it is waiting for response from its author. It doesn't mean that this PR is not important or ignored: feel free to reopen the PR at any time. It only means that attention of committers is not required. We prefer to keep the review queue clean. This ensures PRs in need of review are more visible, which results in faster feedback for all PRs. If you need ANY help to finish this PR, please contact the community on the mailing list or the slack channel." |
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This PR aims to add percentile for ProtocolMessageMetrics.
What is the link to the Apache JIRA
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-9522
How was this patch tested?
Tested in my own cluster.
When we have config:
OM:

SCM:



DN:

The previous review record is as follows:
#5479