Hi Matthias, I agree with your idea. I think that device counter for Android is really confusing so lets remove it. And as you described it, pending state doesn't add much value. Cheers, Oleg On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: > Hi, > > we do have a problem w/ our current metrics processing. It's complicated > (lot's of CDI events and two different JMS messaging approaches...) and > also slow (JPQL/JDBC) and it does consume a lot of memory and processing > time. This is leading to bugs (incorrect stats) and eventually causes down > times, due to heavy processing. > > I'd like to dramatically simplify our metrics processing... to something > like: > Success -> could connect to 3rd party, to deliver tokens > Failure -> something went wrong when talking to 3rd party service. > > > Right now we do have metrics on push delivery: > Pending -> the submission to the 3rd party provider is in flight > Success -> we were able to connect, and could deliver *something* > Failure -> something obvious, like invalid certificate (APNs), no > connection to 3rd party possible, etc > > Besides that, we also do a count on targeted devices. I think there is > not really a huge value. For instance if APNs rejects some tokens, we do > not track those, we just show how many tokens our DB did find, not more. We > don't show any of real interest. We could improve this (see below), but I > doubt that the current implementation is able to handle this well. > > Also, on Android/FCM the numbers are even worse. We do, internally, > leverage their topics, so we usually end up sending exactly one push to > FCM, regardless of how many Android device-tokens we have in the DB. The > counter says 1 (one), because the server did target one topic (not n > devices). > > So, for now, I'd like to dramatically simplify the code, and go with the > above Success/Failure solution. > > However, I honestly think in the long run, we should get something > pluggable, that allows us to process the metrics independently, outside of > the UPS code base. I think my previous Kafka mail is addressing this > partially: The actual response and details about the push job should be > logged to some Kafka system, and an independent process should be able to > process those. > > This will give us much more freedom and flexibility. Perhaps also, in the > future, we want some different stats, and something like Prometheus > /Grafana: > https://prometheus.io/docs/visualization/grafana/ > > A more flexible system, with independent metrics 'calculation' processing > will help us here. > > Any thoughts? > > -Matthias > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorfa > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > -- Oleg Matskiv Associate Quality Engineer Red Hat Mobile Application Platform omatskiv(a)redhat.com _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

I say, and then rethinking what value we want to give and how to do it properly. Just one thing, we need the "pending" state for the UI as a "loading" state, from the moment we click the button "send notification" until one of the two states you propose is reached.

​ On 25 May 2017 at 13:26, Leigh Griffin <lgriffin(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > +1 to removing it and rethinking the value in what is presented! > > It could also lead to false assumptions about end device delivery, when > in reality it's delivering it to the gateway. > > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Oleh Mackiv <omatskiv(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> Hi Matthias, >> I agree with your idea. I think that device counter for Android is >> really confusing so lets remove it. And as you described it, pending state >> doesn't add much value. >> >> Cheers, >> Oleg >> >> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> we do have a problem w/ our current metrics processing. It's >>> complicated (lot's of CDI events and two different JMS messaging >>> approaches...) and also slow (JPQL/JDBC) and it does consume a lot of >>> memory and processing time. This is leading to bugs (incorrect stats) and >>> eventually causes down times, due to heavy processing. >>> >>> I'd like to dramatically simplify our metrics processing... to >>> something like: >>> Success -> could connect to 3rd party, to deliver tokens >>> Failure -> something went wrong when talking to 3rd party service. >>> >>> >>> Right now we do have metrics on push delivery: >>> Pending -> the submission to the 3rd party provider is in flight >>> Success -> we were able to connect, and could deliver *something* >>> Failure -> something obvious, like invalid certificate (APNs), no >>> connection to 3rd party possible, etc >>> >>> Besides that, we also do a count on targeted devices. I think there is >>> not really a huge value. For instance if APNs rejects some tokens, we do >>> not track those, we just show how many tokens our DB did find, not more. We >>> don't show any of real interest. We could improve this (see below), but I >>> doubt that the current implementation is able to handle this well. >>> >>> Also, on Android/FCM the numbers are even worse. We do, internally, >>> leverage their topics, so we usually end up sending exactly one push to >>> FCM, regardless of how many Android device-tokens we have in the DB. The >>> counter says 1 (one), because the server did target one topic (not n >>> devices). >>> >>> So, for now, I'd like to dramatically simplify the code, and go with >>> the above Success/Failure solution. >>> >>> However, I honestly think in the long run, we should get something >>> pluggable, that allows us to process the metrics independently, outside of >>> the UPS code base. I think my previous Kafka mail is addressing this >>> partially: The actual response and details about the push job should be >>> logged to some Kafka system, and an independent process should be able to >>> process those. >>> >>> This will give us much more freedom and flexibility. Perhaps also, in >>> the future, we want some different stats, and something like Prometheus >>> /Grafana: >>> https://prometheus.io/docs/visualization/grafana/ >>> >>> A more flexible system, with independent metrics 'calculation' >>> processing will help us here. >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> -Matthias >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matthias Wessendorf >>> >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorfa >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Oleg Matskiv >> Associate Quality Engineer >> Red Hat Mobile Application Platform >> omatskiv(a)redhat.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >> > > > > -- > > LEIGH GRIFFIN > > ENGINEERING MANAGER, MOBILE > > Red Hat Ireland <https://www.redhat.com/> > > Communications House, Cork Road > > Waterford City, Ireland X91NY33 > > lgriffin(a)redhat.com M: +353877545162 IM: lgriffin > <https://red.ht/sig> > TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted> > > @redhatway <https://twitter.com/redhatway> @redhatinc > <https://instagram.com/redhatinc> @redhatsnaps > <https://snapchat.com/add/redhatsnaps> > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > -- JOSE MIGUEL GALLAS OLMEDO ASSOCIATE QE, mobile Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/> M: +34618488633 <http://redhatemailsignature-marketing.itos.redhat.com/> <https://red.ht/sig> _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: > Hi, > > we do have a problem w/ our current metrics processing. It's complicated > (lot's of CDI events and two different JMS messaging approaches...) and > also slow (JPQL/JDBC) and it does consume a lot of memory and processing > time. This is leading to bugs (incorrect stats) and eventually causes down > times, due to heavy processing. > > I'd like to dramatically simplify our metrics processing... to something > like: > Success -> could connect to 3rd party, to deliver tokens > Failure -> something went wrong when talking to 3rd party service. > > > Right now we do have metrics on push delivery: > Pending -> the submission to the 3rd party provider is in flight > Success -> we were able to connect, and could deliver *something* > Failure -> something obvious, like invalid certificate (APNs), no > connection to 3rd party possible, etc > > Besides that, we also do a count on targeted devices. I think there is > not really a huge value. For instance if APNs rejects some tokens, we do > not track those, we just show how many tokens our DB did find, not more. We > don't show any of real interest. We could improve this (see below), but I > doubt that the current implementation is able to handle this well. > > Also, on Android/FCM the numbers are even worse. We do, internally, > leverage their topics, so we usually end up sending exactly one push to > FCM, regardless of how many Android device-tokens we have in the DB. The > counter says 1 (one), because the server did target one topic (not n > devices). > > So, for now, I'd like to dramatically simplify the code, and go with the > above Success/Failure solution. > > However, I honestly think in the long run, we should get something > pluggable, that allows us to process the metrics independently, outside of > the UPS code base. I think my previous Kafka mail is addressing this > partially: The actual response and details about the push job should be > logged to some Kafka system, and an independent process should be able to > process those. > > This will give us much more freedom and flexibility. Perhaps also, in the > future, we want some different stats, and something like Prometheus > /Grafana: > https://prometheus.io/docs/visualization/grafana/ > > A more flexible system, with independent metrics 'calculation' processing > will help us here. > > Any thoughts? > > What if we remove the current metrics UI

and replace them with webhooks that emit events?

From there, a consumer process (written in what ever language) can offer

It lets us add events easily, somewhat simplifies debugging, and gives integrators a lot more control and hooks into our process. We can even turn the current metrics into a microservice project as an example. (Doubly so when we get Keycloak broken out and properly integrated)

> -Matthias > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorfa > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

On May 30, 2017 3:23 PM, "Matthias Wessendorf" <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> we do have a problem w/ our current metrics processing. It's complicated >> (lot's of CDI events and two different JMS messaging approaches...) and >> also slow (JPQL/JDBC) and it does consume a lot of memory and processing >> time. This is leading to bugs (incorrect stats) and eventually causes down >> times, due to heavy processing. >> >> I'd like to dramatically simplify our metrics processing... to something >> like: >> Success -> could connect to 3rd party, to deliver tokens >> Failure -> something went wrong when talking to 3rd party service. >> >> >> Right now we do have metrics on push delivery: >> Pending -> the submission to the 3rd party provider is in flight >> Success -> we were able to connect, and could deliver *something* >> Failure -> something obvious, like invalid certificate (APNs), no >> connection to 3rd party possible, etc >> >> Besides that, we also do a count on targeted devices. I think there is >> not really a huge value. For instance if APNs rejects some tokens, we do >> not track those, we just show how many tokens our DB did find, not more. We >> don't show any of real interest. We could improve this (see below), but I >> doubt that the current implementation is able to handle this well. >> >> Also, on Android/FCM the numbers are even worse. We do, internally, >> leverage their topics, so we usually end up sending exactly one push to >> FCM, regardless of how many Android device-tokens we have in the DB. The >> counter says 1 (one), because the server did target one topic (not n >> devices). >> >> So, for now, I'd like to dramatically simplify the code, and go with the >> above Success/Failure solution. >> >> However, I honestly think in the long run, we should get something >> pluggable, that allows us to process the metrics independently, outside of >> the UPS code base. I think my previous Kafka mail is addressing this >> partially: The actual response and details about the push job should be >> logged to some Kafka system, and an independent process should be able to >> process those. >> >> This will give us much more freedom and flexibility. Perhaps also, in >> the future, we want some different stats, and something like Prometheus >> /Grafana: >> https://prometheus.io/docs/visualization/grafana/ >> >> A more flexible system, with independent metrics 'calculation' >> processing will help us here. >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> > What if we remove the current metrics UI > For sanity, we are also simplifying the UI: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-2090 > and replace them with webhooks that emit events? > In the long run, I am open to anything else. I think I mainly care about the actual push delivery and the events that we will be submitting to a centralized data hub/pipeline, such as Kafka. From there, a consumer process (written in what ever language) can offer webhooks etc > It lets us add events easily, somewhat simplifies debugging, and gives > integrators a lot more control and hooks into our process. We can even > turn the current metrics into a microservice project as an example. > (Doubly so when we get Keycloak broken out and properly integrated) > the overall idea is to break the server in to a more modular system: * push-sender.war * metrics-processor.war (or jar) * device-regitration.war * UI process I think decoupled keycloak would be also key to this, or what do you mean ? What I meant was it is easier to secure services with a decoupled keycloak. > > >> -Matthias >> >> >> >> -- >> Matthias Wessendorf >> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorfa >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev