5:20 a.m.
Hey,
there was apparently some watercooler discussion yesterday without any
minutes, so the following
will not be able to refer to it in any way.
Hawkular needs to have a way to store, retrieve and display availability
of a resource or a bunch of them [1].
While we have some short term goals, for the longer run we need to
better identify what needs to be done.
I think we need to separately look at the following concerns:
* availability reporting
* api
*values
* availability computation
* availability storage
* availability retrieval
* alerting on availability
* computed resource state
The basic assumption here is that availability is something relatively
stable. Meaning that usually
the same state (hopefully "UP") is reported each time in a row for a
veeery long period of time (there
are some servers with uptimes >> 1 year).
== reporting
Feeds report availability to Hawkular, where the data may be further
processed and stored.
The reported values are probably in the range of "UP", "DOWN". I can
also imagine that e.g.
an application server that starts shutting down could send a
"GOING_DOWN" value.
On the API side, we need to be able to receive (a list of) tuples
`< resource id, report time, state >`
In case of full Hawkular, the _resource id_ needs to be a valid one from
Inventory.
_Report time_ is the local time on the resource / agent when that state
was retrieved,
represented in ms since the epoch UTC and
then finally the _state_ which would be an Enum of "UP", "DOWN" and
potentially some other
values. While I have described them as string here, the representation
on the wire may be
implemented differently like 1 and 0 or true and false.
== computed availability
In addition to above reporting we may have feeds that either are not
able to deliver availability or
where the availability is delivered as a numeric value - see e.g. the
pinger, where a <rid>.status.code
is delivered as metric value representing the http status codes.
Here we need to be apply a mapping from return code -> availability.
f(code) -> code < 400 ? "UP" : "DOWN"
and then further proceed with that computed availability value.
See also [2] and [3]
=== "Backfill"
As feeds may not report back all the time, we may want to have a
watchdog which adds
a transition into "UNKNOWN" state.
=== Admin-down
A feed may discover resources that report their state as DOWN but where
this is not an issue and rather an
administrative decision. Take a network card as example where the card
as 8 ports, but only 4 of them
are connected. So the other 4 will be reported as DOWN, but in fact they
are DOWN on purpose.
The admin may mark those interfaces as ADMIN_DOWN, which also implies
that further incoming
DOWN-reports (what about UP, UNKNOWN?) reports can be ignored until the
admin re-enables the
interface.
This admin-down probably also needs to be marked in inventory.
=== Maintenance mode
On top of the availability we also have maintenance mode which is
orthogonal to availability and is more meant for alert suppression and
SLA computation. Maintenance mode should not overwrite the recorded or
computed availability.
We still want to record the original state no matter how maintenance
mode is.
== Storage
As I wrote earlier, the base assumption is that availability is supposed
to stay the same for
long periods of time. For that reason run-length encoded storage is
advised
< resource id, state, from , to >
The fields are more or less self-explanatory - to would be "null" if the
current state continues.
This is also sort of what we have done in RHQ, where we have also been
running into some issues,
(especially as we had a very db-bound approach). One issue is that if
you have a transition from UP to DOWN
the DB situation looks like this:
Start:
<rid , UP, from1 , null >
up-> Down at time = from2
find tuple <rid, ??, ??, null > and update to
<rid, UP, from1, from2>
append new tuple
<rid, DOWN, from2, null>
The other issue is to get the current availability (for display in UI
and/or in the previous transition)
find tuple <rid, ??, ??, null>
which are expensive.
The retrieval of the current availability for a resource can be improved
by introducing a cache that stores
as minimal information <rid, last state>.
Another issue that Yak pointed out is that if availability is recorded
infrequently and at random points in time,
just recording when a transition from UP to DOWN or even UNKNOWN
happened may be not enough, as there are scenarios when it is still
important to know when we heard the last UP report.
So above storage (and cache) tuple needs to be extended to contain the
_last heard_ time:
< resource id, state, from , to, last_head >
In this case, as we do not want to update that record for each incoming
availability report, we need to really
cache this information and have either some periodic write back to the
store or at least when a shutdown listener indicates that Hawkular is
going down. In case that we have multiple API endpoints that receive
alert reports , this may need to be a distributed cache.
== Retrieval
Retrieval of availability information may actually a bit more tricky as
returning the current availability state,
as there will be more information to convey:
We have two basic cases
* return current availability / resource state : this can probably be
answered directly from above mentioned cache
* return a timeline between some arbitrary start and end times. Here we
need to go out and return all records
that satisfy something like ( start_time < requested start && end_time >
requested start ) || (start_time > requested start && end_time <=
requested_end )
=== application / group of resources
For applications the situation becomes more complicated as we need to
retrieve the state (records) for each involved resource and then compute
the total state of the application.
Take an app with a load balancer, 3 app servers and a DB then this
computation may go like
avail ( app ) :=
UP if all resources are UP
MIXED if one app server is not UP
DOWN otherwise
Actually this may even contain a time component
avail ( app , time of day ) :=
if (business_hours (time of day) )
UP if all resources are UP
MIXED if one app server is not UP
DOWN otherwise
else
UP if all resources are UP
MIXED if two app servers are not UP
DOWN otherwise
It may be a good idea to not compute that on the fly at retrieval time,
but to add the result as synthetic availability records for the
computation into the normal availability processing stream as indicated
earlier in the "computed availability" section. This way, the computed
information is also available for alerting as input
== Alerting on availability
Alerting will need to see the (computed) availability data and also the
maintenance mode information to be able to
alert on
* is UP/DOWN/... ( for X time )
* goes UP/DOWN/...
With the above I think that alerting should not need to do complex
availability calculations on its own, but rather
work on the stream of incoming (compute
[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/HWKMETRICS-35
[2] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/hawkular-dev/2015-March/000413.html
[3] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/hawkular-dev/2015-March/000402.html
7:55 a.m.
Great write-up Heiko, let me try to intersperse the outcomes of the
yesterday's watercooler into it so that we get the discussion started.
tl;dr - your ideas match almost exactly what we discussed on the meeting ;)
The basic outcome of the meeting IMHO was that availability is in its most
generic form a computed value and that the feeds might not be able to decide
whether something is up or down. Judging such thing on "logical" resources
like "applications" must be handled at some other layer either by polling for
other data on a schedule and reporting the findings back into Hawkular by a
completely 3rd party "reporter" or maybe such reporters would be hooked on the
bus to receive "realtime" info about events and be able to compute the avail
reactively.
Also, it was agreed that even the availability states are not something we can
decide upfront. Maybe we'd provide a number of avail values with undefined
meaning that only avail "reporter" would be able define or we could understand
avail as "health" ranging from 0-100% and again let the avail reporter decide
on a value.
On metrics level, the agreement was to keep the "availability" endpoints to be
able to distinguish it from "normal" metrics. But there also were suggestions
to just be able to mark some metrics as run-length encoded and consider avail
as an ordinary metric.
Other subsystems need to distinguish between avail and other metrics.
Especially inventory needs to be told which metric corresponds to an avail
value for particular resource.
On Friday, March 20, 2015 11:20:17 Heiko W.Rupp wrote:
Hey,
there was apparently some watercooler discussion yesterday without any
minutes, so the following
will not be able to refer to it in any way.
Hawkular needs to have a way to store, retrieve and display availability
of a resource or a bunch of them [1].
While we have some short term goals, for the longer run we need to
better identify what needs to be done.
I think we need to separately look at the following concerns:
* availability reporting
* api
*values
* availability computation
* availability storage
* availability retrieval
* alerting on availability
* computed resource state
The basic assumption here is that availability is something relatively
stable. Meaning that usually
the same state (hopefully "UP") is reported each time in a row for a
veeery long period of time (there
are some servers with uptimes >> 1 year).
== reporting
Feeds report availability to Hawkular, where the data may be further
processed and stored.
The reported values are probably in the range of "UP", "DOWN". I can
also imagine that e.g.
an application server that starts shutting down could send a
"GOING_DOWN" value.
If the feed is able to report on a "state" of something, I imagine we need at
least 3 states: UP, DOWN and UNKNOWN. I imagine that a feed in and of itself
wouldn't be able to report more elaborate states like "degraded" or
"half-
functional" or "up but rest api under heavy load" or such like.
I imagine there either being a reporter that would compute such more involved
states somewhere "up in the pipeline" or there could be some default simple
translation like UP = 100%, DOWN = 0%, UNKNOWN = UNKNOWN (btw. I think
"unknown" should be implicitly possible on any metric when I think about it,
because it is distinctively different from "not collected").
The problem with GOING_DOWN is that it seems to me to be a one time event
rather than a value of a metric.
On the API side, we need to be able to receive (a list of) tuples
`< resource id, report time, state >`
In case of full Hawkular, the _resource id_ needs to be a valid one from
Inventory.
The inventory has metrics and resources decoupled from each other with just an
m:n relationship between them. As such, I think inventory will just mark one
of such relationships with an "avail" flag.
The tuples therefore will just be
`< avail_id, report_time, state >`
_Report time_ is the local time on the resource / agent when that
state
was retrieved,
represented in ms since the epoch UTC and
then finally the _state_ which would be an Enum of "UP", "DOWN" and
potentially some other
values. While I have described them as string here, the representation
on the wire may be
implemented differently like 1 and 0 or true and false.
== computed availability
In addition to above reporting we may have feeds that either are not
able to deliver availability or
where the availability is delivered as a numeric value - see e.g. the
pinger, where a <rid>.status.code
is delivered as metric value representing the http status codes.
Here we need to be apply a mapping from return code -> availability.
f(code) -> code < 400 ? "UP" : "DOWN"
and then further proceed with that computed availability value.
Yes, exactly. Further to this, I think we may want (on case by case basis, I
think) to actually NOT store the reported value but only store the computed
one.
See also [2] and [3]
=== "Backfill"
As feeds may not report back all the time, we may want to have a
watchdog which adds
a transition into "UNKNOWN" state.
+1
=== Admin-down
A feed may discover resources that report their state as DOWN but where
this is not an issue and rather an
administrative decision. Take a network card as example where the card
as 8 ports, but only 4 of them
are connected. So the other 4 will be reported as DOWN, but in fact they
are DOWN on purpose.
The admin may mark those interfaces as ADMIN_DOWN, which also implies
that further incoming
DOWN-reports (what about UP, UNKNOWN?) reports can be ignored until the
admin re-enables the
interface.
This admin-down probably also needs to be marked in inventory.
I am not sure we even want to have ADMIN_DOWN as an explicit avail state. All
we need to have is some kind of metric reporting that right now, a flag called
ON_PURPOSE = true (this can be just another metric coming from an actual user
for example or as you say it can be a property on a resource or even the avail
metric itself in inventory (every entity in inventory can store arbitrary key-
value pairs)).
We still can have avail UP or DOWN reported but because we know that this is
ON_PURPOSE, alerts may choose to react differently for example.
=== Maintenance mode
On top of the availability we also have maintenance mode which is
orthogonal to availability and is more meant for alert suppression and
SLA computation. Maintenance mode should not overwrite the recorded or
computed availability.
We still want to record the original state no matter how maintenance
mode is.
+1
As with ADMIN_DOWN, this can be modeled in a number of ways.
== Storage
As I wrote earlier, the base assumption is that availability is supposed
to stay the same for
long periods of time. For that reason run-length encoded storage is
advised
< resource id, state, from , to >
The fields are more or less self-explanatory - to would be "null" if the
current state continues.
This is also sort of what we have done in RHQ, where we have also been
running into some issues,
(especially as we had a very db-bound approach). One issue is that if
you have a transition from UP to DOWN
This implies a read on each store of new incoming data. Logically, it makes
sense, by I assume that internally, metrics will do this differently like for
example actually store the raw values for a short-ish period of time and
aggregate them to run-length encoded periodically.
the DB situation looks like this:
Start:
<rid , UP, from1 , null >
up-> Down at time = from2
find tuple <rid, ??, ??, null > and update to
<rid, UP, from1, from2>
append new tuple
<rid, DOWN, from2, null>
I think this is not precise. Let me illustrate on another example:
Incoming data:
1) <rid, t1, UP>
2) <rid, t2, UP>
3) <rid, t3, DOWN>
I think this should be encoded as:
<rid, UP, t1, t2>
<rid, UNKNOWN, t2, t3>
<rid, DOWN, t3, t3>
I.e. I would explicitly encode the information about the impossibility of
knowing the precise time of going down. This also means that you know the last
time you saw a resource up.
I would also not store the "null" for the last run-length encoded piece,
because you actually don't know that the resource is still up. Instead if
someone asks for avail at time t4 (before next avail report comes after t3), I
would report "unknown, last seen "down" at t3).
(We could also just not store the UNKNOWN altogether and only interpret it
from the lack of data for that period of time)
The other issue is to get the current availability (for display in
UI
and/or in the previous transition)
find tuple <rid, ??, ??, null>
which are expensive.
The retrieval of the current availability for a resource can be improved
by introducing a cache that stores
as minimal information <rid, last state>.
+1
Another issue that Yak pointed out is that if availability is
recorded
infrequently and at random points in time,
just recording when a transition from UP to DOWN or even UNKNOWN
happened may be not enough, as there are scenarios when it is still
important to know when we heard the last UP report.
So above storage (and cache) tuple needs to be extended to contain the
_last heard_ time:
< resource id, state, from , to, last_head >
if we encode the transition from up to down as I outlined above, the last
heard time is the start time of the unknown between the up and down.
In this case, as we do not want to update that record for each
incoming
availability report, we need to really
cache this information and have either some periodic write back to the
store or at least when a shutdown listener indicates that Hawkular is
going down. In case that we have multiple API endpoints that receive
alert reports , this may need to be a distributed cache.
== Retrieval
Retrieval of availability information may actually a bit more tricky as
returning the current availability state,
as there will be more information to convey:
We have two basic cases
* return current availability / resource state : this can probably be
answered directly from above mentioned cache
* return a timeline between some arbitrary start and end times. Here we
need to go out and return all records
that satisfy something like ( start_time < requested start && end_time >
requested start ) || (start_time > requested start && end_time <=
requested_end )
=== application / group of resources
For applications the situation becomes more complicated as we need to
retrieve the state (records) for each involved resource and then compute
the total state of the application.
Take an app with a load balancer, 3 app servers and a DB then this
computation may go like
avail ( app ) :=
UP if all resources are UP
MIXED if one app server is not UP
DOWN otherwise
Actually this may even contain a time component
avail ( app , time of day ) :=
if (business_hours (time of day) )
UP if all resources are UP
MIXED if one app server is not UP
DOWN otherwise
else
UP if all resources are UP
MIXED if two app servers are not UP
DOWN otherwise
It may be a good idea to not compute that on the fly at retrieval time,
but to add the result as synthetic availability records for the
computation into the normal availability processing stream as indicated
earlier in the "computed availability" section. This way, the computed
information is also available for alerting as input
+1
== Alerting on availability
Alerting will need to see the (computed) availability data and also the
maintenance mode information to be able to
alert on
* is UP/DOWN/... ( for X time )
* goes UP/DOWN/...
I personally am a fan of avail being a percentage rather than a simple
boolean. That makes the goes up/down less intuitive but if we understand the
percentage as "health" it might not be that bad to understand:
alert on
health < 50%
With the above I think that alerting should not need to do complex
availability calculations on its own, but rather
work on the stream of incoming (compute
+1
[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/HWKMETRICS-35
[2] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/hawkular-dev/2015-March/000413.html
[3] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/hawkular-dev/2015-March/000402.html
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
8:37 a.m.
New subject: Availability
On 20 Mar 2015, at 13:55, Lukas Krejci wrote:
tl;dr - your ideas match almost exactly what we discussed on the
meeting ;)
Nice :-)
completely 3rd party "reporter" or maybe such reporters
would be
hooked on the
bus to receive "realtime" info about events and be able to compute the
avail
reactively.
Yes, which is in fact something I've started yesterday for pinger
status.code
to metrics
Also, it was agreed that even the availability states are not
something we can
decide upfront. Maybe we'd provide a number of avail values with
undefined
meaning that only avail "reporter" would be able define or we could
understand
avail as "health" ranging from 0-100% and again let the avail reporter
decide
on a value.
We may need to distinguish here between external value and internal
computed state.
For external values, I think what you say is just a different version of
the mapping function(s) I proposed.
For internal processing, I think we need to have a set of read-made
values that we map the external ones to.
In the computed resource state email I got those:
UP: Resource is available and working normally
DEGRADED: Resource is available but not at full performance
DOWN: Resource is at fault and not working normally
MISSING: The resource was recorded in inventory, but does not exist in
reality (e.g. was deleted on file system)
ADMIN_DOWN/DISABLED: The resource exists, but was disabled by the admin
(e.g. a network interface on a 8 port card where only 1 cable is
connected)
UNKNOWN: Resource state can not be determined
MIXED: for groups / applications
And then, but which I now think should be orthogonal:
MAINTENANCE: There is a scheduled maintenance period, availability may
be UP or DOWN
On metrics level, the agreement was to keep the "availability"
endpoints to be
able to distinguish it from "normal" metrics. But there also were
suggestions
to just be able to mark some metrics as run-length encoded and
consider avail
as an ordinary metric.
I am not convinced (yet) that availability should be recorded into
Hawkular-Metrics,
as the Metrics api is lacking the mapping functionality.
I rather think we need "Hawkular-Availability" which offers some
end-points + api
and which then defers the storage to the Hawkular-Inventory metrics
storage engine.
9:36 a.m.
New subject: Availability
On Mar 20, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Heiko W.Rupp <hrupp(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
On 20 Mar 2015, at 13:55, Lukas Krejci wrote:
> tl;dr - your ideas match almost exactly what we discussed on the
> meeting ;)
Nice :-)
> completely 3rd party "reporter" or maybe such reporters would be
> hooked on the
> bus to receive "realtime" info about events and be able to compute the
> avail
> reactively.
Yes, which is in fact something I've started yesterday for pinger
status.code
to metrics
>
> Also, it was agreed that even the availability states are not
> something we can
> decide upfront. Maybe we'd provide a number of avail values with
> undefined
> meaning that only avail "reporter" would be able define or we could
> understand
> avail as "health" ranging from 0-100% and again let the avail reporter
> decide
> on a value.
We may need to distinguish here between external value and internal
computed state.
For external values, I think what you say is just a different version of
the mapping function(s) I proposed.
For internal processing, I think we need to have a set of read-made
values that we map the external ones to.
In the computed resource state email I got those:
UP: Resource is available and working normally
DEGRADED: Resource is available but not at full performance
DOWN: Resource is at fault and not working normally
MISSING: The resource was recorded in inventory, but does not exist in
reality (e.g. was deleted on file system)
ADMIN_DOWN/DISABLED: The resource exists, but was disabled by the admin
(e.g. a network interface on a 8 port card where only 1 cable is
connected)
UNKNOWN: Resource state can not be determined
MIXED: for groups / applications
And then, but which I now think should be orthogonal:
MAINTENANCE: There is a scheduled maintenance period, availability may
be UP or DOWN
>
> On metrics level, the agreement was to keep the "availability"
> endpoints to be
> able to distinguish it from "normal" metrics. But there also were
> suggestions
> to just be able to mark some metrics as run-length encoded and
> consider avail
> as an ordinary metric.
I am not convinced (yet) that availability should be recorded into
Hawkular-Metrics,
as the Metrics api is lacking the mapping functionality.
I rather think we need "Hawkular-Availability" which offers some
end-points + api
and which then defers the storage to the Hawkular-Inventory metrics
storage engine.
I suppose I am a bit biased since I work on metrics, but I do think availability should be
stored in metrics. I think that the mapping functionality belongs on the client/agent side
just as it was in RHQ. Those mapping functions should probably stored be stored in
inventory so that users can see precisely how availability is determined for a particular
type of resource and so that the user can also change how availability is calculated.
10:43 a.m.
New subject: Availability
> I am not convinced (yet) that availability should be recorded
into
> Hawkular-Metrics,
> as the Metrics api is lacking the mapping functionality.
> I rather think we need "Hawkular-Availability" which offers some
> end-points + api
> and which then defers the storage to the Hawkular-Inventory metrics
> storage engine.
I suppose I am a bit biased since I work on metrics, but I do think
availability should be stored in metrics. I think that the mapping
I did not write it should not be stored in metrics, but rather that it
should
not be reported into metrics in the first place, but into a (logical)
availability component.
functionality belongs on the client/agent side just as it was in RHQ.
Well, this only partially works, as an application most probably
consists
of resources that are distributed over several machines and thus feeds.
In this case we need to take multiple values into account to compute
the final value.
Also in cases where e.g. we have an agent like in classic RHQ that
monitors
an application and also a pinger in some other place, wich also pings
that application.
Now suppose that the agent loses its connection to the server, but the
pinger reports
the application as UP. In this case we may even want to override the
"unknown"
information from the agent, as the pinger shows that the app is up.
Those mapping functions should probably stored be stored in inventory
so that users can see precisely how availability is determined for a
particular type of resource and so that the user can also change how
availability is calculated.
Absolutely.
11:42 a.m.
New subject: Availability
On Mar 20, 2015, at 11:43 AM, Heiko W.Rupp <hrupp(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>> I am not convinced (yet) that availability should be recorded into
>> Hawkular-Metrics,
>> as the Metrics api is lacking the mapping functionality.
>> I rather think we need "Hawkular-Availability" which offers some
>> end-points + api
>> and which then defers the storage to the Hawkular-Inventory metrics
>> storage engine.
>
> I suppose I am a bit biased since I work on metrics, but I do think
> availability should be stored in metrics. I think that the mapping
I did not write it should not be stored in metrics, but rather that it
should
not be reported into metrics in the first place, but into a (logical)
availability component.
> functionality belongs on the client/agent side just as it was in RHQ.
Well, this only partially works, as an application most probably
consists
of resources that are distributed over several machines and thus feeds.
In this case we need to take multiple values into account to compute
the final value.
Also in cases where e.g. we have an agent like in classic RHQ that
monitors
an application and also a pinger in some other place, wich also pings
that application.
Now suppose that the agent loses its connection to the server, but the
pinger reports
the application as UP. In this case we may even want to override the
"unknown"
information from the agent, as the pinger shows that the app is up.
Great point about multiple resources. I have to therefore slightly refine my previous
statement. I think that the functionality belongs on the agent. As I said in the agent
discussions, I think that there are use cases for different types of agents - embedded,
c-located, and remote. For the example of monitoring availability for a resource (or
resources) spanning several machines, I think it should be the job of a remote agent.
Maybe that remote agent is running inside the hawkular server. I am not sure. They key
though is that the approach is consistent in terms of who is applying that availability
function.
> Those mapping functions should probably stored be stored in inventory
> so that users can see precisely how availability is determined for a
> particular type of resource and so that the user can also change how
> availability is calculated.
Absolutely.
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
11:12 a.m.
New subject: Availability
On 20 Mar 2015, at 17:42, John Sanda wrote:
Great point about multiple resources. I have to therefore slightly
refine my previous statement. I think that the functionality belongs
on the agent. As I said in the agent discussions, I think that there
are use cases for different types of agents - embedded, c-located, and
remote. For the example of monitoring availability for a resource (or
resources) spanning several machines, I think it should be the job of
a remote agent. Maybe that remote agent is running inside the hawkular
server. I am not sure. They key though is that the approach is
consistent in terms of who is applying that availability function.
I have been talking about "cheap alert pre-computation" on the
agent in the past, and this certainly makes sense. But it also
opens a can of worms^w complexity, that we should not tackle
in the first place.
The other question is what do we do with raw-avail-data-sources,
that are not delivered by an agent we write, but e.g. via curl?
For now I propose to do the computation on the server side.
Attached image illustrates this. All incoming "raw" data (that should
be used for alerting / computed resource state) is
* stored in e.g. Hawkular-Metrics
* run through the function that e.g. determines that a http status code
500 means DOWN
or a duration > 300ms means WARN
* the result of the function is then also stored and forwarded to
alerting
and other users.
We would of course need to provide default-functions, but with the
possibility to
fine-tune them.
4:45 a.m.
New subject: Availability
Le 20/03/2015 15:36, John Sanda a écrit :
I suppose I am a bit biased since I work on metrics, but I do think
availability should be stored in metrics. I think that the mapping functionality belongs
on the client/agent side just as it was in RHQ. Those mapping functions should probably
stored be stored in inventory so that users can see precisely how availability is
determined for a particular type of resource and so that the user can also change how
availability is calculated.
It should be stored in Metrics, as anything evolving with time. It
doesn't mean Metrics has to maintain a dedicated metric type.
4:43 a.m.
New subject: Availability
Le 20/03/2015 14:37, Heiko W.Rupp a écrit :
I am not convinced (yet) that availability should be recorded into
Hawkular-Metrics,
as the Metrics api is lacking the mapping functionality.
I rather think we need "Hawkular-Availability" which offers some
end-points + api
and which then defers the storage to the Hawkular-Inventory metrics
storage engine.
+1
4006
days inactive
4031
days old
8 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Heiko W.Rupp -
John Sanda -
Lukas Krejci -
Thomas Segismont