Re: [Hawkular-dev] metrics on the bus

It's possible the solution proposed by John should be the ultimate goal. It has the advantage of creating a distribution of Metrics+Alerting while also solving an H Services performance issue. But I don't really buy this argument which distills down to, "what if there are bugs?". And I don't really buy into John's argument that the JMS use in H Services has an inherent performance issue. Without the full publishing of all metrics, and the subsequent filtering by alerting, I'm sure it can handle what we throw at it and plenty more. Finally, I don't really agree with Lucas that John's approach is a major architectural change, it presents a packaging issue and adds some integration code. It doesn't propose removal of JMS/bus in H Services. So personally, I don't have an issue with PR-568 as an immediate solution to the existing performance issue. I also don't mind if we close it and immediately implement John's approach as it potentially gives us two wins for the price of one. And I also don't mind if PR-568 is an interim solution if we decide to defer the co-packaging approach. I think we need a decision from Heiko and Thomas as to how to proceed, and minimally, I appreciate that Lucas has been proactive in providing at least one solution. On 8/17/2016 6:57 PM, Stefan Negrea wrote: One of the contentions that I have with PR-568 is that introduces more failures points for data prior to reaching Alerts. Publishing all data directly is a simple proposition: data comes in, is persisted to Cassandra, and at the same time sent via JMS. The PR introduces multiple additional failure points and a failure in the Metrics will go unnoticed. For example, what if the filtering mechanism all of a sudden crashed, what then? What if the data being filtered does not match the expectations from Alerts; as in Alerts requested data for a metric id to be sent but Metrics lost track of that and does not report data for that metric id. Going back to the replies from Randall, in order for PR-568 to be an alternative to what is done today, we will need to design a lot of additional features to get the same level of delivery confidence and guarantee that we have today (without the PR). https://github.com/hawkular/hawkular-metrics/pull/568 Thank you, Stefan Negrea On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Jay Shaughnessy <jshaughn(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > +1. Although Randall is right, there is definitely a chance of > inconsistency between what is persisted and what is processed by > alerting, I think it's acceptable for our purposes. In general users > have historically accepted that server downtime can result in missed > alerts. Moreover, almost all of the alerting scenarios involve behavior > over time. > > > On 8/17/2016 5:44 AM, Michael Burman wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Storing to Cassandra and JMS is not atomic as Cassandra does not > provide transactions and especially not 2PC. So they're two different > writes and can always result in inconsistency, no matter the secondary > transport protocol. Also, is alerts even capable of handling all the > possible crash scenarios? And do we even care about such a small window of > potential data loss to the alerting engine in the case of a crash (which > will take down both metrics & alerts on that node) ? We don't provide > strict consistency with default metrics setting either, defaulting to one > node acknowledges in Cassandra. There are multiple theoretical scenarios > where we could in multi node scenario lose data or get inconsistencies. > > > > I think these are acceptable however for our use case. Even assuming we > would lose one "node down" datapoint, that same situation probably persist > for the next datapoint -> alert triggers, if you lose one metric datapoint > from a bucket the calculated averages or percentiles etc only suffer a > minor precision imperfection. Not to mention that almost everything in > monitoring is already a discrete information sampled at certain point of > time and not a continuous real value, so precision is lost before it even > arrives to us. > > > > For those reasons I'd say these "problems" are more academical, without > any real world implications in this domain. > > > > - Micke > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Randall Hauch" <rhauch(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "Discussions around Hawkular development" < > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 7:42:56 PM > > Subject: Re: [Hawkular-dev] metrics on the bus > > > > I agree that the distributed system is probably more fault tolerant > when using JMS than putting everything into a single app and forgoing JMS. > > > > BTW, does metrics write data to Cassandra and publish to JMS > atomically? If not, that’s also a window for failure that might result in > data loss. Something to consider if Hawkular requires complete consistency > and can’t afford data loss. > > > >> On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:08 AM, John Sanda <jsanda(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> > >> With the JMS solution we have in place right now, data points are > published after they have persisted in Cassandra. We can certainly keep > that same behavior. > >> > >>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Randall Hauch <rhauch(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > >>> > >>> Sorry, I’ve been lurking. One thing to consider is how each approach > handles failures. For example, what happens if the system crashes after > processed by metrics but before alerts picks it up? Will the system become > inconsistent or will some events be lost before alerts sees them? > >>> > >>> Really, in order for the system to be completely fault tolerant, each > component has to be completely atomic. Components that use “dual writes” > (e.g., write to one system, then write to another outside of a larger > transaction) will always be subject to losing data/events during a very > inopportune failure. Not only that, a system comprised of multiple > components that individually are safe might still be subject to losing > data/events. > >>> > >>> I hope this is helpful. > >>> > >>> Randall > >>> > >>>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 10:25 AM, John Sanda <jsanda(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I considered clustering before making the suggestion. > MetricDataListener listens to a JMS topic for data points. When it receives > data points, it passes those data points to AlertsEngine which in turn > writes the data points into an ISPN, distributed cache. And then it looks > like those data point get processed via a cache entry listener in > AlertsEngineImpl. If I understand this data flow correctly, then I think it > will work just as well if not better in a single WAR. Rather than getting > notifications from a JMS topic, MetricDataListener can receive > notifications from an Observable that pushes data point as they received in > client requests. Metrics will also subscribe to that same Observable so > that it can persist the data points. The fact that alerts is using a > distributed cache works to our advantage here because it provides a > mechanism for distributing data across nodes. > >>>> > >>>>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 3:29 AM, Lucas Ponce <lponce(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> This is a big point. > >>>>> > >>>>> I can see pros and cons on it. > >>>>> > >>>>> First thing it comes to me is that metrics has a stateless nature > meanwhile alerts is stateful. > >>>>> > >>>>> So a first coupling would work for a single node but when we want > to scale our troubles can start as the design in clustered scenarios is > completely different and a single .war won't help IMO. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't think our current design is bad, in the context of the > HAWKULAR-1102 and working in a demand publishing draft we are addressing > the business issues that triggered this discussion. > >>>>> > >>>>> But I would like to hold this topic for a future architecture face > to face meeting, to discuss it from all angles as we did on Madrid. > >>>>> > >>>>> (Counting with a face to face meeting in a reasonable timeframe, of > course). > >>>>> > >>>>> Lucas > >>>>> > >>>>> ----- Mensaje original ----- > >>>>>> De: "John Sanda" <jsanda(a)redhat.com&gt; > >>>>>> Para: "Discussions around Hawkular development" < > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; > >>>>>> Enviados: Lunes, 15 de Agosto 2016 16:45:28 > >>>>>> Asunto: Re: [Hawkular-dev] metrics on the bus > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We use JMS in large part because metrics and alerts are in > separate WARs (I > >>>>>> realize JMS is used for other purposes, but I am speaking strictly > about > >>>>>> this scenario). Why not deploy metrics and alerts in the same WAR > and > >>>>>> altogether bypass JMS? As data points are ingested, we broadcast > them using > >>>>>> an Rx subject to which both metrics and alerts subscribe. We could > do this > >>>>>> is in away that still keeps metrics and alerts decoupled as they > are today. > >>>>>> We would also have the added benefit of having a stand alone > deployment for > >>>>>> metrics and alerts. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Aug 10, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Jay Shaughnessy < jshaughn(a)redhat.com > > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, in fact I should have made it more clear that this whole > discussion is > >>>>>> bounded by H Metrics and H Alerting in the H Services context, so > limiting > >>>>>> this to HS/Bus integration code is what we'd want to do. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 8/10/2016 4:06 AM, Heiko W.Rupp wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Someone remind me please. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That bus-sender in/or hawkular-metrics is not an > >>>>>> internal detail of metrics, but rather sort of > >>>>>> 'external add-on'? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If so, the logic to filter (or create many subscriptions) > >>>>>> could go into it and would not touch the core metrics. > >>>>>> Metrics would (as it does today) forward all new data- > >>>>>> points into this sender and the sender can then decide > >>>>>> how to proceed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> hawkular-dev mailing list hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> hawkular-dev mailing list > >>>>>> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> hawkular-dev mailing list > >>>>>> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev > >>>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> hawkular-dev mailing list > >>>>> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> hawkular-dev mailing list > >>>> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> hawkular-dev mailing list > >>> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> hawkular-dev mailing list > >> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > hawkular-dev mailing list > > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > hawkular-dev mailing list > > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev > > _______________________________________________ > hawkular-dev mailing list > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev > _______________________________________________ hawkular-dev mailing listhawkular-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev _______________________________________________ hawkular-dev mailing list hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev