[Hawkular-dev] change to inventory metric model to store Prometheus info

[Jay Shaughnessy]

I agree with Lucas that a unique ID will help the existing model we have 
for the provider.  P doesn't care about this because it is designed 
around the slice-and-dice grouping of querying against the metric name 
and a subset of labels.  We do care because we need to identify the 
singleton time series (TS) for a metric name on a resource.  That 
equates to the set of key-value pairs that uniquely identify the TS.  I 
don't have a problem with merging the two suggestions.  We could have 
explicit, immutable fields for [family] name (String) and labels (Map).  
We could also have an id (perhaps a hash of these two fields)?

By keeping the name and label (keyset) available, we would have more 
flexibility for potentially using the metrics easily is some other sort 
of aggregation.


On 10/27/2017 5:30 AM, Lucas Ponce wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:50 AM, John Mazzitelli <mazz at redhat.com 
> <mailto:mazz at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     > I mean, what if we consider a metricId also opaque, and we know
>     that in P8S
>     > is a combination of <metric_name><labels>, at the end of the
>     day, is a
>     > string and it is unique.
>     >
>     > I ask this, because if we expose the details, it will be tempted
>     to start
>     > manipulating IDs in other layers, and perhaps that will create
>     technical
>     > debt.
>
>     Just thinking off the top of my head, Prometheus's
>     "family{labels}" ID is not to be considered opaque. It is
>     important, I think, that clients understand these because it is
>     how you query in Prometheus.
>
>     For example, to get a group (aggregate) metric value, you could
>     query on just a subset of labels thus aggregating over the labels
>     you did not specify.
>
>     For example, if there is:
>
>     http_requests_time{method="POST", app="my.war"} = 1.0
>     http_requests_time{method="POST", app="another.war"} = 1.2
>     http_requests_time{method="GET", app="my.war"} = 0.5
>     http_requests_time{method="GET", app="another.war"} = 0.6
>
>     A client (MiQ UI?) can aggregate the GET request times across all
>     apps by
>     knowing it only queries with the method label, like "average(
>     http_requests_time{method="GET"} )"
>
>     So therefore P metric IDs (family+labels) are not opaque - clients
>     need to understand them a bit.
>
>
>
> MiQ today provides an abstraction layer (which is not perfect, but it 
> helps) to map miq identifiers used in MiQ reports and charts and 
> native metrics identifiers.
>
> Like this:
>
> https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/blob/master/product/live_metrics/middleware_server.yaml
> https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/blob/master/product/live_metrics/middleware_datasource.yaml
>
> So, a report in MiQ is defined with this miq identifiers
>
> https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/blob/master/product/charts/miq_reports/vim_perf_realtime_middleware_server.yaml
>
>
> The way we define the mapping between inventory and prometheus will 
> have an important impact in MiQ code as it will be needed to change 
> most of today's logic
>
> https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-hawkular/blob/master/app/models/manageiq/providers/hawkular/middleware_manager/live_metrics_capture.rb
> https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-hawkular/blob/master/app/models/manageiq/providers/hawkular/middleware_manager/alert_profile_manager.rb
> https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/blob/master/app/models/middleware_performance.rb
>
> So, I'm just thinking loud with the new inventory how this will be 
> translated, as I guess we will still need a metric_id at least to 
> define the mapping, even we get benefits of the metricNames/Labels to 
> perform specific calculations.
>
>
> In summary, I think we will need a metric_id (but perhaps the 
> identifier of the inventory could be enough).
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/hawkular-dev/attachments/20171027/b7113350/attachment-0001.html