fix: remove instantaneous_metric and collect network metrics every 5 seconds

[yaoyinnan]

Using the instantaneous_metric thread to collect every 0.1s will consume cpu resources, and it is only used for collecting network traffic, which is not very worthwhile. Remove the instantaneous_metric thread and use DoTimingTask() to collect network traffic every 5 seconds.

Fixes: #1756

[cr-gpt]

Based on the provided code patch, here's a brief code review:

1. It seems that the code patch adds a new block of code to the existing PikaServer::Start() method.
2. The added code is responsible for logging a message using the LOG(INFO) macro.
3. It checks if the instantaneous_metric thread is joinable (i.e., it hasn't been joined yet) using the joinable() function before attempting to join it. This helps ensure that the main thread waits for the instantaneous_metric thread to finish before exiting the program.
4. The added logging statement indicates that the instantaneous metric thread is exiting.

Overall, the code appears to be straightforward and doesn't seem to contain any obvious bugs or issues. However, without the complete context of the code and its dependencies, it's difficult to provide more specific feedback or improvement suggestions.

[cr-gpt]

Here are some observations and suggestions for the code patch you provided:

1. The comment in the code mentions that the cron is called every 5 seconds, but the code change itself doesn't reflect this. You may need to update the cron job frequency in the code as well.

2. The getInstantaneousMetric function appears to calculate the average of an array (metricSamples) and return it. Make sure that the STATS_METRIC_SAMPLES constant is appropriately defined and that the array contains the desired number of samples.

3. Consider validating the input parameter metric in the getInstantaneousMetric function. Ensure that the input is a valid metric name before performing any calculations or operations.

4. Although not visible in the provided code snippet, make sure that necessary header files are included if they are required for the code to compile and run successfully.

5. Review the usage of variables and ensure their correctness throughout the codebase.

6. Consider adding proper error handling mechanisms, such as return codes or exceptions, to handle exceptional cases or invalid inputs gracefully.

Remember to review the surrounding code, as the provided snippet may not give a complete context.

[cr-gpt]

Based on the provided code patch, here are a few observations and suggestions:

1. Removal of instantaneous_metric thread: The code patch removes the creation and execution of the instantaneous_metric thread. Since we don't have the context of the entire codebase, it's difficult to determine the impact. Make sure that there are no dependencies or requirements for updating the instantaneous metric.

2. Adjusting the factor value in AutoInstantaneousMetric(): The code patch changes the value of the factor variable from 1000000 (1 second) to 50000000 (5 seconds). This will affect the tracking of the instantaneous metrics. Ensure that this change aligns with the desired behavior and accuracy of the metrics being tracked.

3. Overall readability: The provided code patch is relatively short, and without more information about the surrounding code, it is challenging to make further improvements. Ensure that the variables, function names, and comments accurately reflect their purpose to improve readability and maintainability.

Remember to thoroughly test the modified code to ensure that it behaves as expected and doesn't introduce any other issues.

[cr-gpt]

Unfortunately, I can't review the code patch as it wasn't provided in your message. However, I can provide you with some general tips for code reviews:

1. Readability: Ensure that the code is easy to read and understand. Use meaningful variable and function names, and proper indentation.

2. Correctness: Check if the code implements the intended behavior correctly. Verify that the logic is sound and the code handles edge cases appropriately.

3. Error handling: Look for potential error scenarios and verify that appropriate error handling mechanisms are in place, such as exception handling or error return codes.

4. Performance: Identify any potential performance bottlenecks or unnecessary resource usage. Consider if there are any optimizations that can be made without sacrificing readability.

5. Code duplication: Look for duplicated code blocks and consider refactoring them into reusable functions or classes.

6. Documentation: Check if the code is well-documented, including comments explaining complex sections, function signatures, and overall design choices.

7. Security: Pay attention to potential security vulnerabilities, such as input validation, data sanitization, and protection against common attack vectors like SQL injection or cross-site scripting (XSS).

Remember that a thorough code review requires a deep understanding of the project context and requirements. It's also essential to involve the original author or experienced team members who are familiar with the codebase to get their insights.

[cr-gpt]

Without the full context of the code and its dependencies, it's challenging to provide an in-depth review. However, based on the provided code patch, here are a few observations:

1. Renaming Function: The function AutoInstantaneousMetric() has been renamed to AutoUpdateNetworkMetric(). This change seems straightforward and doesn't raise any immediate concerns.

2. Unused Functions: Some functions (AutoPurge(), AutoDeleteExpiredDump(), AutoKeepAliveRSync()) are mentioned but not included in the code snippet. Make sure these functions are either removed if they are no longer needed or implemented correctly if they are intended to be part of the class.

3. Class Context: It appears that the code patch is part of a class called PikaServer. The rest of the class definition and its methods are not shown. Ensure that the added method (AutoUpdateNetworkMetric) is properly placed within the class hierarchy and follows the same conventions as other methods in the class.

4. Variable Initialization: The variable host_ is declared as a std::string, but it doesn't seem to have an initial value. Ensure that it is initialized with a suitable default value before being used.

Without more context on usage patterns, overall design, and the remaining code, it's challenging to identify potential bugs or offer specific improvement suggestions. It might be beneficial to perform a thorough review of the entire class and consider running tests to ensure the desired functionality is achieved throughout the codebase.