<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Calibri">An event bus is for publishing events and I'm
not sure every datum is an event of any significance. The
storage of an interesting datum could be an event, and what is
interesting can't be determined by the storage mechanism unless
told. It's not unlike adding a trigger to a db, or registering a
listener to be informed of significant happenings among a larger
set of happenings. So, to a degree I agree with Micke,
publishing all events to the bus is good. But that leaves the
semantic of choosing what an event is, and I'd say every datum is
not an event. And I'd also say that just because a bus can handle
millions of events, there is a practicality to not doing a bunch
of unnecessary work, and instead leaving that bandwidth available
to be used for solving actual business problems.<br>
<br>
I agree with Heiko that there are drawbacks to the polling
approach (as usual). But it has the advantage of not needing any
further work on the metrics side. But since Metrics already has
hooks for bus publishing in hawkular, perhaps it wouldn't be hard
to add some selection as well. I'm also fine with some sort of
listener approach that leverages the co-location of components.
Maybe some sort of Observer. Perhaps Micke or other metrics guys
could comment on that possibility.<br>
</font><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/9/2016 6:18 AM, Michael Burman
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:144911476.793489.1470737911351.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
Like I said in the IRC, I don't like either approach and both sort of piss on the well known EIP pattern. Since this problem has been solved ages ago, why are we going to reinvent it? Use a bus, and I mean - a real bus. Created by us, or someone else.
onMessage(msg) {
if(subscriptionMap.contains(msg.getTarget())) {
subscriptionMap.get(msg.getTarget()).forEach(sub -> sub.writeMsg()));
}
}
addSubscriber(Subscriber sub, String target) { subscriptionMap.add(target, sub); }
Millions of msgs per second should be quite normal performance per node. Add thread notify & waits and have fun with dispatcher/multiplexer nirvana . VertX/Guava/Hazelcast/etc have event busses also, but in the end this is very simple process and should be part of the bus - not part of the metrics.
Components should not create the event bus, that should have been the whole point of hawkular-bus. If it can't do that, then it needs to be replaced.
- Micke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Shaughnessy" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jshaughn@redhat.com"><jshaughn@redhat.com></a>
To: "Discussions around Hawkular development" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org"><hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org></a>
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 12:00:24 AM
Subject: [Hawkular-dev] metrics on the bus
Lucas and I were talking over jira [1] which has to do with metrics/alerting scale. This was discussed a bit on IRC recently as well. Today, metrics publishes all datapoints to the bus (metrics and avail go to different topics). The only consumer of that data is alerting, and it consumes a small fraction of the total data (actually it consumes none of it OOB at the moment, but that will hopefully change as Lucas's alerting work comes on line in MIQ).
Although in its purest form this publish-it-all is the essence of bus publishing, we both feel it's an unnecessary waste of resources, as metrics can reach very high volume. There are a few approaches to reducing the publishing/filtering that we're currently doing. The options we discussed boil down to:
* No Publishing
* Just query metrics for the data needed for alerting (or whatever other external use we may have for the data)
* This is essentially a polling approach with frequent polling
* Demand Publishing
* The "just tell me what movie you want to see" approach
* Let clients request the metric ids it wants published to the bus
I'm purposefully not going into much detail at this point. I'd rather we talk out a preferred approach between these two, or something not presented. But we'd like to move away from the current publish-it-all approach.
[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://issues.jboss.org/browse/HWKALERTS-118">https://issues.jboss.org/browse/HWKALERTS-118</a> .
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org">hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev</a>
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org">hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>