You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is an odd one. I have a graph which shows traffic to a wildcard number of webservers (currenly 2) and aggregate them using the sumSeries() function to give me total number of hits across all servers.The servers are currently active/backup so only one server will handle traffic at a time. This morning we failed the servers over so traffic moved from the primary to the secondary node.
The traffic for the system is around 11-12k requests/min but if the sumSeries() function is active the traffic shows as double before the failover...
If I remove the sumSeries() function the data points look correct...
Whats stranger still is that if I zoom into a time before the failover but with the sumSeries() function active I see the correct traffic level (12k, not ~24k).
Is this a bug or am I missing something?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Not to highjack the thread but if you are using stacked graphs with sumSeries() and one of the metrics doesnt return a value the stacked graph goes eschew.
This is an odd one. I have a graph which shows traffic to a wildcard number of webservers (currenly 2) and aggregate them using the sumSeries() function to give me total number of hits across all servers.The servers are currently active/backup so only one server will handle traffic at a time. This morning we failed the servers over so traffic moved from the primary to the secondary node.
The traffic for the system is around 11-12k requests/min but if the sumSeries() function is active the traffic shows as double before the failover...
If I remove the sumSeries() function the data points look correct...
Whats stranger still is that if I zoom into a time before the failover but with the sumSeries() function active I see the correct traffic level (12k, not ~24k).
Is this a bug or am I missing something?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: