Feature: BB-310 add oplog populator dashboard #2358
Conversation
Hello kerkesni,My role is to assist you with the merge of this Status report is not available. |
Kerkesni
force-pushed
the
feature/BB-310-add-oplog-populator-dashboard
branch
2 times, most recently
from
55680af
to
c0f3eea
Compare
Integration data createdI have created the integration data for the additional destination branches.
The following branches will NOT be impacted:
You can set option |
Waiting for approvalThe following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:
|
Kerkesni
force-pushed
the
feature/BB-310-add-oplog-populator-dashboard
branch
from
c0f3eea
to
bc54b0a
Compare
Integration data createdI have created the integration data for the additional destination branches.
The following branches will NOT be impacted:
You can set option |
Waiting for approvalThe following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:
|
Kerkesni
force-pushed
the
feature/BB-310-add-oplog-populator-dashboard
branch
from
bc54b0a
to
43d345a
Compare
History mismatchMerge commit #003e089189abaad374b1c3c00e37e894ea21f1aa on the integration branch It is likely due to a rebase of the branch Please use the |
|
/reset |
Reset completeI have successfully deleted this pull request's integration branches. |
Integration data createdI have created the integration data for the additional destination branches.
The following branches will NOT be impacted:
You can set option |
Waiting for approvalThe following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:
|
Kerkesni
force-pushed
the
feature/BB-310-add-oplog-populator-dashboard
branch
from
43d345a
to
1ff65b0
Compare
History mismatchMerge commit #d6223aa2ea40b0d8adfd4d5753b601a648c4f881 on the integration branch It is likely due to a rebase of the branch Please use the |
Kerkesni
force-pushed
the
feature/BB-310-add-oplog-populator-dashboard
branch
from
1ff65b0
to
c002108
Compare
Kerkesni
force-pushed
the
feature/BB-310-add-oplog-populator-dashboard
branch
from
c002108
to
ab6302d
Compare
| expr='sum (rate(' + Metrics.CONNECTOR_CONFIG_APPLIED('success="false"') + '))', | ||
| )]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am wondering if it would be more clear for the user to see the actual number of errors instead of the rate.
Also, in the screenshot this graph show "No data". Is this the default behavior when there have been no failures ? (if yes, it's probably better to show the graph with 0)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is actually a developer bias : we usually run with small number of objects, and we want to be precise : so the precise number is what we expect... but in production, precise values are much higher and don't matter so much: what matters is how frequent changes happen...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, this makes sense.
What I had in mind was that this should ideally stay to 0 and we will want to pay attention to even a low number of failures.
| ] | ||
|
|
||
| CONNECTORS = metrics.CounterMetric( | ||
| 'oplog_populator_connectors', 'isOld', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not anymore, but the metric does have that property so i think maybe it makes sense to keep it in the definition of the metric ?
| fillOpacity=10, | ||
| spanNulls=True, | ||
| targets=[Target( | ||
| expr='sum by(connector) (' + Metrics.BUCKETS.raw() + ')', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For my understanding: what is an "expected" number (order of magnitude) of connectors ?
(what I am thinking is that this graph may become hard to read if there are 10s of connectors)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't know yet actually, the number will depend on the performance of the connectors, meaning that if a single connector can handle tens of thousands of buckets at a time we'll probably have few connectors, and it's true the other way around.
There's a ticket for doing that performance test which will also help determine how we manage the connectors, for now the number of configured connectors is a set value that can be configured at Zenko CR level. This might change later on to make it dynamic in case of sudden degradation of performance with the addition of buckets to connectors.
|
|
||
|
|
||
| bucket_distribution = PieChart( | ||
| title='Bucket Distribution', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like this is misleading, the Bucket from prometheus and the Bucket from S3... Maybe we can have something easier to understand for a not-so-technical reader?
| fillOpacity=10, | ||
| spanNulls=True, | ||
| targets=[Target( | ||
| expr='sum by(connector) (' + Metrics.BUCKETS.raw() + ')', |
|
/approve |
History mismatchMerge commit #d6223aa2ea40b0d8adfd4d5753b601a648c4f881 on the integration branch It is likely due to a rebase of the branch Please use the The following options are set: approve |
|
/reset |
Reset completeI have successfully deleted this pull request's integration branches. The following options are set: approve |
Integration data createdI have created the integration data for the additional destination branches.
The following branches will NOT be impacted:
You can set option The following options are set: approve |
In the queueThe changeset has received all authorizations and has been added to the The changeset will be merged in:
The following branches will NOT be impacted:
There is no action required on your side. You will be notified here once IMPORTANT Please do not attempt to modify this pull request.
If you need this pull request to be removed from the queue, please contact a The following options are set: approve |
|
I have successfully merged the changeset of this pull request
The following branches have NOT changed:
Please check the status of the associated issue BB-310. Goodbye kerkesni. |
Issue: BB-310