C* metrics are pushed to hawkular-metrics through a dropwizard reporter, there's no new endpoint as far as I can tell (it was mostly John's work, actually, not mine).

Of course (and except if I'm missing something) metrics wouldn't be on a per tenant basis here.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Michael Burman <miburman@redhat.com> wrote:

Hi,

Wouldn't it make sense in Metrics deployment to just send them to
metrics? Then there's no need to create new endpoints, just fetch them
as you would any other metric (from the internal admin tenant).

- Micke

On 01/30/2017 01:05 PM, Lucas Ponce wrote:
>> What about alerting? More alert definitions certainly need more cpu, so
>> number of alert definitions per tenant and total would be another pair.
>> * does number of fired alerts also make sense?
>>
> Certainly, it could have some sense to have these figures.
>
> These kind of data is "low hanging fruit" in the sense that adding an endpoint to query them is straightforward.
>
> We can add a "/count" suffix to some endpoint to get the # instead the list or a similar.
>
> Is there a preferred way to name the endpoint for this ?
>
>
>> The idea behind those is to get some usage figures of the
>> shared resource "Hawkular metrics" and then to be able to
>> charge them back onto individual tenants e.g. inside of
>> OpenShift.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> hawkular-dev mailing list
>> hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev

_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev