[Hawkular-dev] Proposing closer integration of APM and "Hawkular metrics" on Kubernetes / OpenShift

[neil.okamoto+hawkular at gmail.com]

>From the outside looking in, this proposal seems to assume monitoring/metrics are similar enough to APM traces that they can and should converge in a single collection system. Whereas I would have expected the proposal was to combine the in the presentation/UI *after* collection. Am I misunderstanding?  Because I would have thought the characteristics of these systems would be unique enough to stay separate, e.g. the traffic rates for metrics vs traces would be different, the ‘schema’ of what needs to be forwarded and stored is different, and for sure the APM traces need to be correlated based on their trace IDs and otherwise filtered based on somewhat arbitrary tags supplied in the instrumentation.



> On Feb 27, 2017, at 8:58 AM, John Mazzitelli <mazz at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> *b) I think it would make sense to always use the Prometheus protocol (and
>> Hosa may learn how to use the more efficient binary protocol)
> 
> If you are referring to the Prometheus binary exposition format [1] (aka content type of "application/vnd.google.protobuf; proto=io.prometheus.client.MetricFamily; encoding=delimited" as opposed to "text/plain"), HOSA already supports this - it can read any Prometheus endpoint that exposes metric data in either the text or binary format.
> 
> See the source code [2] and a test [3] that shows this working.
> 
> [1] https://prometheus.io/docs/instrumenting/exposition_formats/
> [2] https://github.com/hawkular/hawkular-openshift-agent/blob/master/prometheus/prometheus_scraper.go#L69-L78
> [3] https://github.com/hawkular/hawkular-openshift-agent/blob/master/prometheus/prometheus_scraper_test.go#L155-L164
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev