<div dir="ltr">After discussion with Jay:<div><br></div><div>- About the naming, we can stick to the term of "mixed" availability (rather than "aggregated" or whatever) to keep continuity with previous products</div><div>- The endpoint would accept query by ids or tags</div><div>- Resulting series would provide datapoints with a key/value map of ratio per state. So states such as "unknown" and "admin" are not discarded. More interestingly it would also be usable with string types</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Joel Takvorian <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jtakvori@redhat.com" target="_blank">jtakvori@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 3:11 PM, John Sanda <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jsanda@redhat.com" target="_blank">jsanda@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I like the idea of aggregated availabilities, but I don’t know that it can easily be simplified to up/down. Let’s say we have 3 Cassandra nodes deployed with replication_factor = 1. If one node goes down we are at 66% availability.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>You're right, it would be even better to keep a "up ratio" information for each point. And it will still be easily reduced to a binary "all UP" or "any UP" by the client if desired.<br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>