VotersWatch issueWatchersLinkCloneUpdate Comment AuthorReplace String in CommentUpdate Comment VisibilityDelete Comments


    • Sub-task
    • Status: Resolved
    • Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • 2.8.0
    • 2.8.0, 3.0.0-alpha1
    • fs
    • None


      The StorageStatistics provides a pretty general interface, i.e. getLong(name) and getLongStatistics(). There is no shared or standard names for the storage statistics and thus the getLong(name) is up to the implementation of storage statistics. The problems:

      1. For the common statistics, downstream applications expect the same statistics name across different storage statistics and/or file system schemes. Chances are they have to use DFSOpsCountStorageStatistics#getLong(“getStatus”) and S3A.Statistics#getLong(“get_status”) for retrieving the getStatus operation stat.
      2. Moreover, probing per-operation stats is hard if there is no standard/shared common names.

      It makes a lot of sense for different schemes to issue the per-operation stats of the same name. Meanwhile, every FS will have its own internal things to count, which can't be centrally defined or managed. But there are some common which would be easier managed if they all had the same name.

      Another motivation is that having a common set of names here will encourage uniform instrumentation of all filesystems; it will also make it easier to analyze the output of runs, were the stats to be published to a "performance log" similar to the audit log. See Steve's work for S3 (e.g. HADOOP-13171)

      This jira is track the effort of defining common StorageStatistics entry names. Thanks to Colin McCabe, Steve Loughran, Hitesh Shah and Jitendra Nath Pandey for offline discussion.


        1. HADOOP-13305.001.patch
          13 kB
          Mingliang Liu
        2. HADOOP-13305.000.patch
          13 kB
          Mingliang Liu


          This comment will be Viewable by All Users Viewable by All Users


            liuml07 Mingliang Liu
            liuml07 Mingliang Liu
            0 Vote for this issue
            6 Start watching this issue



              Issue deployment