Hello Dmitriy, I agree.
By "minimal partition redundancy level for cache group" I mean minimal number of partition copies among all partitions of this cache group. For example, if we have in our cluster for cache group one partition with 2 copies (1 primary and 1 backup) and other partitions with 4 copies (1 primary and 3 backups), then minimal partition redundancy level for this cache group will be 2. 2017-11-22 5:34 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > Hi Alex, > > I think the proper approach would be to have a separate MBean for cache > groups. It should show average metrics across all the caches in the group > and some additional metrics as well. Agree? > > Also, I am not sure I understand what is "partition redundancy level" and > what that metric would show. Can you explain. > > D. > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello, Igniters! > > > > > > > > I would like to discuss the implementation of ticket IGNITE-6871. > > > > > > > > In our Ignite instance there are more than 1000 caches and about 10 cache > > groups. To minimize the probability of data loss we need to alert when a > > critical level of redundancy in cluster is reached. So, we need some > > metric, which will count a minimal partition redundancy level for a cache > > group. > > > > > > > > Now there are no MXBeans for cache groups. And since cache groups were > > introduced, some metrics from CacheMetricsMXBean actually show > information > > about the cache group, but not about the cache. > > > > > > > > I can implement the new metric (minimal partition redundancy level for > > cache group) in CacheMetricsMXBean, the same way it was before. In such > > case we’ll whether need to monitor this metric for all caches or to get > > somehow information about cache to cache group relation and to monitor > this > > metric for only one cache per cache group. But it’s not transparent to an > > administrator which cache groups are existing and which caches belong to > > which cache group. > > > > > > > > Alternatively, I can implement a new type of MXBean for cache groups and > > add a new metric to this MXBean. Maybe it will be useful later to add to > > this MXBean some other cache group related metrics, which now are > > implemented in CacheMetricsMXBean. > > > > > > > > So, should I extend existing CacheMetricsMXBean or create a new type of > > MXBeans for cache groups? > > >
