Add MaximumOverIntervalGauge #498
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Kushagra Udai <[email protected]>
kushudai
force-pushed
the
max-over-interval-gauge
branch
from
c3d1811 to
3c5350d
Compare
Signed-off-by: Kushagra Udai <[email protected]>
kushudai
force-pushed
the
max-over-interval-gauge
branch
from
cad7cfa to
96d1676
Compare
kushudai
changed the title
|
Hi @lucab, given that you reviewed the original PR, I was hoping you could take a look at this. |
Signed-off-by: Kushagra Udai <[email protected]>
kushudai
force-pushed
the
max-over-interval-gauge
branch
from
1cdf904 to
d1fa533
Compare
|
Hi @lucab, I apologize for the nag but I was hoping you could take a look at this one :) |
…ometheus into max-over-interval-gauge
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is mostly a reimplementation of #469 updated to address the main comment.
The previous use case was fine using i64 as it was tracking queue sizes which were integral. However, we've noticed noise in our latency histograms. Since a
histogram_quantileof 1 is merely an approximation (or an extrapolation, in case of not enough data points), we've seen "max" metrics skew heavily towards the the largest bucket.We know these are not real because the server side timeouts are much smaller than the largest bucket but a bit bigger than the second largest bucket.
A similar but separate problem is not having enough 9s for systems that serve hundreds of thousands of RPS - P99 does not accurately reflect tail latencies for these and adjusting the charts on a per use case basis is painful busywork.
Instead of finely tuning buckets for different latency histogram metrics, we'd like to be able to report the maximum latency observed for a given time period (this is usually the scraping interval).
This allows us to put a cap on maximum latency seen on server side processing which then allows to accurately attribute network latency as seen by clients.