You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@trafficserver.apache.org by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> on 2023/12/18 02:28:41 UTC
[PROPOSAL] Remove "proxy.process" prefix from all core metrics
Through all our cleanup and refactoring in the past, as far as I can tell, all metrics are now prefixed with proxy.process.
This seems a little superfluous. I’d like to suggests one of two options:
1. Just drop the prefix entirely.
2. Replace the prefix with “ats”.
Thoughts?
— Leif
Re: [E] Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove "proxy.process" prefix from all core metrics
Posted by Damian Meden <da...@yahooinc.com.INVALID>.
> I did indeed try this route first, but it was difficult to find a
solution that works with our tools. traffic_top (etc.) doesn’t read
records.yaml, so it won’t know a change to the prefix.
I think it will be doable to have a record_alias.json or something like
that that traffic_ctl/top/etc maps before calling the RPC and get the
renaming done. Not sure if this is worth it but I can look into this if we
agreed on.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 6:03 AM Leif Hedstrom <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 2023, at 21:20, Walt Karas <wk...@yahooinc.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> > Is the current naming based on some SNMP MIB spec?
>
> Doubtful, we had one 20+ years ago, but not any more.
> >
> > Personally, my indifference is boundless. This change will I think lead
> to
> > some logistic aggravation, due to scripts that take metrics output as
> input.
>
> Yes, there’s definitely logistic issues here.
>
> >
> > Any chance it's worth it to make the prefix configurable?
>
> Not easily, because we have tools (such as traffic_top) which has
> hardcoded the metrics name. I did indeed try this route first, but it was
> difficult to find a solution that works with our tools. traffic_top (etc.)
> doesn’t read records.yaml, so it won’t know a change to the prefix.
>
> — Leif
> >
> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 9:41 PM James Peach <jp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> On 18 Dec 2023, at 1:28 pm, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Through all our cleanup and refactoring in the past, as far as I can
> >> tell, all metrics are now prefixed with proxy.process.
> >>>
> >>> This seems a little superfluous. I’d like to suggests one of two
> options:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Just drop the prefix entirely.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Replace the prefix with “ats”.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> >> What would be the impact on existing deployments?
> >>
> >> J
>
Re: [E] [PROPOSAL] Remove "proxy.process" prefix from all core metrics
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
> On Dec 20, 2023, at 11:07 AM, Miles Libbey <ml...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Could these tools do something like call traffic_ctl config get
> proxy.config.metric_prefix instead of loading the full records.config?
Good idea. Yeh, they probably could, requires more work than I was willing to invest at the time. :). I can look again.
— Leif
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 9:03 PM Leif Hedstrom <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 18, 2023, at 21:20, Walt Karas <wk...@yahooinc.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is the current naming based on some SNMP MIB spec?
>>
>> Doubtful, we had one 20+ years ago, but not any more.
>>>
>>> Personally, my indifference is boundless. This change will I think lead
>> to
>>> some logistic aggravation, due to scripts that take metrics output as
>> input.
>>
>> Yes, there’s definitely logistic issues here.
>>
>>>
>>> Any chance it's worth it to make the prefix configurable?
>>
>> Not easily, because we have tools (such as traffic_top) which has
>> hardcoded the metrics name. I did indeed try this route first, but it was
>> difficult to find a solution that works with our tools. traffic_top (etc.)
>> doesn’t read records.yaml, so it won’t know a change to the prefix.
>>
>> — Leif
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 9:41 PM James Peach <jp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> On 18 Dec 2023, at 1:28 pm, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Through all our cleanup and refactoring in the past, as far as I can
>>>> tell, all metrics are now prefixed with proxy.process.
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems a little superfluous. I’d like to suggests one of two
>> options:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Just drop the prefix entirely.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Replace the prefix with “ats”.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What would be the impact on existing deployments?
>>>>
>>>> J
>>
Re: [E] Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove "proxy.process" prefix from all core metrics
Posted by Miles Libbey <ml...@apache.org>.
Could these tools do something like call traffic_ctl config get
proxy.config.metric_prefix instead of loading the full records.config?
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 9:03 PM Leif Hedstrom <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 2023, at 21:20, Walt Karas <wk...@yahooinc.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> > Is the current naming based on some SNMP MIB spec?
>
> Doubtful, we had one 20+ years ago, but not any more.
> >
> > Personally, my indifference is boundless. This change will I think lead
> to
> > some logistic aggravation, due to scripts that take metrics output as
> input.
>
> Yes, there’s definitely logistic issues here.
>
> >
> > Any chance it's worth it to make the prefix configurable?
>
> Not easily, because we have tools (such as traffic_top) which has
> hardcoded the metrics name. I did indeed try this route first, but it was
> difficult to find a solution that works with our tools. traffic_top (etc.)
> doesn’t read records.yaml, so it won’t know a change to the prefix.
>
> — Leif
> >
> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 9:41 PM James Peach <jp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> On 18 Dec 2023, at 1:28 pm, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Through all our cleanup and refactoring in the past, as far as I can
> >> tell, all metrics are now prefixed with proxy.process.
> >>>
> >>> This seems a little superfluous. I’d like to suggests one of two
> options:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Just drop the prefix entirely.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Replace the prefix with “ats”.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> >> What would be the impact on existing deployments?
> >>
> >> J
>
Re: [E] Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove "proxy.process" prefix from all core metrics
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <ap...@gmail.com>.
> On Dec 18, 2023, at 21:20, Walt Karas <wk...@yahooinc.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Is the current naming based on some SNMP MIB spec?
Doubtful, we had one 20+ years ago, but not any more.
>
> Personally, my indifference is boundless. This change will I think lead to
> some logistic aggravation, due to scripts that take metrics output as input.
Yes, there’s definitely logistic issues here.
>
> Any chance it's worth it to make the prefix configurable?
Not easily, because we have tools (such as traffic_top) which has hardcoded the metrics name. I did indeed try this route first, but it was difficult to find a solution that works with our tools. traffic_top (etc.) doesn’t read records.yaml, so it won’t know a change to the prefix.
— Leif
>
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 9:41 PM James Peach <jp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On 18 Dec 2023, at 1:28 pm, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Through all our cleanup and refactoring in the past, as far as I can
>> tell, all metrics are now prefixed with proxy.process.
>>>
>>> This seems a little superfluous. I’d like to suggests one of two options:
>>>
>>> 1. Just drop the prefix entirely.
>>>
>>> 2. Replace the prefix with “ats”.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> What would be the impact on existing deployments?
>>
>> J
Re: [E] Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove "proxy.process" prefix from all core metrics
Posted by Walt Karas <wk...@yahooinc.com.INVALID>.
Is the current naming based on some SNMP MIB spec?
Personally, my indifference is boundless. This change will I think lead to
some logistic aggravation, due to scripts that take metrics output as input.
Any chance it's worth it to make the prefix configurable?
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 9:41 PM James Peach <jp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On 18 Dec 2023, at 1:28 pm, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Through all our cleanup and refactoring in the past, as far as I can
> tell, all metrics are now prefixed with proxy.process.
> >
> > This seems a little superfluous. I’d like to suggests one of two options:
> >
> > 1. Just drop the prefix entirely.
> >
> > 2. Replace the prefix with “ats”.
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
>
> What would be the impact on existing deployments?
>
> J
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove "proxy.process" prefix from all core metrics
Posted by James Peach <jp...@apache.org>.
> On 18 Dec 2023, at 1:28 pm, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Through all our cleanup and refactoring in the past, as far as I can tell, all metrics are now prefixed with proxy.process.
>
> This seems a little superfluous. I’d like to suggests one of two options:
>
> 1. Just drop the prefix entirely.
>
> 2. Replace the prefix with “ats”.
>
>
> Thoughts?
What would be the impact on existing deployments?
J
Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove "proxy.process" prefix from all core metrics
Posted by James Peach <jp...@apache.org>.
> On 18 Dec 2023, at 1:28 pm, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Through all our cleanup and refactoring in the past, as far as I can tell, all metrics are now prefixed with proxy.process.
>
> This seems a little superfluous. I’d like to suggests one of two options:
>
> 1. Just drop the prefix entirely.
>
> 2. Replace the prefix with “ats”.
>
>
> Thoughts?
What would be the impact on existing deployments?
J
Re: [E] [PROPOSAL] Remove "proxy.process" prefix from all core metrics
Posted by Damian Meden <da...@yahooinc.com.INVALID>.
>To distinguish from “config” ? I mean, it’s obviously a metric or stat at
this point already :).
What I meant by this is, how do we know that `ats` means only `metric`? and
not a config record. Anyway, I am +1 to drop the `proxy.process` . I am
just inclined to have a prefix which can be used to scope what's on the
right side of the prefix.
Damian.
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 6:17 PM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 2023, at 3:40 AM, Damian Meden <da...@yahooinc.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to remove the `proxy.process`
> >
> > I don't like either #1 or #2 although I agree to have a single prefix. I
> > think eventually we will have this same conversation about `proxy.config`
> > so to me a name that means the scope of the record should be used, `ats`
> > seems too generic as can also be used by a config record(unless this is
> > what we want).
> >
> > Maybe just `metric` or `stat` could work.
>
>
> To distinguish from “config” ? I mean, it’s obviously a metric or stat at
> this point already :).
>
>
> — Leif
>
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Damian.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 3:29 AM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Through all our cleanup and refactoring in the past, as far as I can
> tell,
> >> all metrics are now prefixed with proxy.process.
> >>
> >> This seems a little superfluous. I’d like to suggests one of two
> options:
> >>
> >> 1. Just drop the prefix entirely.
> >>
> >> 2. Replace the prefix with “ats”.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> — Leif
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: [E] [PROPOSAL] Remove "proxy.process" prefix from all core metrics
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
> On Dec 18, 2023, at 3:40 AM, Damian Meden <da...@yahooinc.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> +1 to remove the `proxy.process`
>
> I don't like either #1 or #2 although I agree to have a single prefix. I
> think eventually we will have this same conversation about `proxy.config`
> so to me a name that means the scope of the record should be used, `ats`
> seems too generic as can also be used by a config record(unless this is
> what we want).
>
> Maybe just `metric` or `stat` could work.
To distinguish from “config” ? I mean, it’s obviously a metric or stat at this point already :).
— Leif
>
> Thanks.
> Damian.
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 3:29 AM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Through all our cleanup and refactoring in the past, as far as I can tell,
>> all metrics are now prefixed with proxy.process.
>>
>> This seems a little superfluous. I’d like to suggests one of two options:
>>
>> 1. Just drop the prefix entirely.
>>
>> 2. Replace the prefix with “ats”.
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> — Leif
>>
>>
Re: [E] [PROPOSAL] Remove "proxy.process" prefix from all core metrics
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
> On Dec 18, 2023, at 3:40 AM, Damian Meden <da...@yahooinc.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> +1 to remove the `proxy.process`
>
> I don't like either #1 or #2 although I agree to have a single prefix. I
> think eventually we will have this same conversation about `proxy.config`
> so to me a name that means the scope of the record should be used, `ats`
> seems too generic as can also be used by a config record(unless this is
> what we want).
>
> Maybe just `metric` or `stat` could work.
To distinguish from “config” ? I mean, it’s obviously a metric or stat at this point already :).
— Leif
>
> Thanks.
> Damian.
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 3:29 AM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Through all our cleanup and refactoring in the past, as far as I can tell,
>> all metrics are now prefixed with proxy.process.
>>
>> This seems a little superfluous. I’d like to suggests one of two options:
>>
>> 1. Just drop the prefix entirely.
>>
>> 2. Replace the prefix with “ats”.
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> — Leif
>>
>>
Re: [E] [PROPOSAL] Remove "proxy.process" prefix from all core metrics
Posted by Damian Meden <da...@yahooinc.com.INVALID>.
+1 to remove the `proxy.process`
I don't like either #1 or #2 although I agree to have a single prefix. I
think eventually we will have this same conversation about `proxy.config`
so to me a name that means the scope of the record should be used, `ats`
seems too generic as can also be used by a config record(unless this is
what we want).
Maybe just `metric` or `stat` could work.
Thanks.
Damian.
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 3:29 AM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> Through all our cleanup and refactoring in the past, as far as I can tell,
> all metrics are now prefixed with proxy.process.
>
> This seems a little superfluous. I’d like to suggests one of two options:
>
> 1. Just drop the prefix entirely.
>
> 2. Replace the prefix with “ats”.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> — Leif
>
>