feat(new_metrics): migrate partition-level metrics for partition_guardian #1440
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
acelyc111
approved these changes
Apr 16, 2023
empiredan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 18, 2023
…dian (#1440) #1331 In perf counters, there's only one metric for partition_guardian, namely the number of operations that fail to choose the primary replica, which is server-level. It would be changed to partition-level in new metrics since this could give which partitions fail to choose primaries and how frequency those happen. Still, to compute table-level or server-level metrics just aggregate on partition-level ones.
empiredan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 27, 2023
…dian (#1440) #1331 In perf counters, there's only one metric for partition_guardian, namely the number of operations that fail to choose the primary replica, which is server-level. It would be changed to partition-level in new metrics since this could give which partitions fail to choose primaries and how frequency those happen. Still, to compute table-level or server-level metrics just aggregate on partition-level ones.
empiredan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 5, 2023
…dian (#1440) #1331 In perf counters, there's only one metric for partition_guardian, namely the number of operations that fail to choose the primary replica, which is server-level. It would be changed to partition-level in new metrics since this could give which partitions fail to choose primaries and how frequency those happen. Still, to compute table-level or server-level metrics just aggregate on partition-level ones.
empiredan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 11, 2023
…dian (#1440) #1331 In perf counters, there's only one metric for partition_guardian, namely the number of operations that fail to choose the primary replica, which is server-level. It would be changed to partition-level in new metrics since this could give which partitions fail to choose primaries and how frequency those happen. Still, to compute table-level or server-level metrics just aggregate on partition-level ones.
empiredan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2023
…dian (#1440) #1331 In perf counters, there's only one metric for partition_guardian, namely the number of operations that fail to choose the primary replica, which is server-level. It would be changed to partition-level in new metrics since this could give which partitions fail to choose primaries and how frequency those happen. Still, to compute table-level or server-level metrics just aggregate on partition-level ones.
empiredan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2023
…dian (#1440) #1331 In perf counters, there's only one metric for partition_guardian, namely the number of operations that fail to choose the primary replica, which is server-level. It would be changed to partition-level in new metrics since this could give which partitions fail to choose primaries and how frequency those happen. Still, to compute table-level or server-level metrics just aggregate on partition-level ones.
empiredan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 5, 2023
…dian (#1440) #1331 In perf counters, there's only one metric for partition_guardian, namely the number of operations that fail to choose the primary replica, which is server-level. It would be changed to partition-level in new metrics since this could give which partitions fail to choose primaries and how frequency those happen. Still, to compute table-level or server-level metrics just aggregate on partition-level ones.
empiredan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 21, 2023
…dian (#1440) #1331 In perf counters, there's only one metric for partition_guardian, namely the number of operations that fail to choose the primary replica, which is server-level. It would be changed to partition-level in new metrics since this could give which partitions fail to choose primaries and how frequency those happen. Still, to compute table-level or server-level metrics just aggregate on partition-level ones.
empiredan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 9, 2023
…dian (#1440) #1331 In perf counters, there's only one metric for partition_guardian, namely the number of operations that fail to choose the primary replica, which is server-level. It would be changed to partition-level in new metrics since this could give which partitions fail to choose primaries and how frequency those happen. Still, to compute table-level or server-level metrics just aggregate on partition-level ones.
empiredan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 11, 2023
…dian (#1440) #1331 In perf counters, there's only one metric for partition_guardian, namely the number of operations that fail to choose the primary replica, which is server-level. It would be changed to partition-level in new metrics since this could give which partitions fail to choose primaries and how frequency those happen. Still, to compute table-level or server-level metrics just aggregate on partition-level ones.
empiredan
added a commit
to empiredan/pegasus
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 6, 2023
…dian (apache#1440) apache#1331 In perf counters, there's only one metric for partition_guardian, namely the number of operations that fail to choose the primary replica, which is server-level. It would be changed to partition-level in new metrics since this could give which partitions fail to choose primaries and how frequency those happen. Still, to compute table-level or server-level metrics just aggregate on partition-level ones.
empiredan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 11, 2023
…dian (#1440) #1331 In perf counters, there's only one metric for partition_guardian, namely the number of operations that fail to choose the primary replica, which is server-level. It would be changed to partition-level in new metrics since this could give which partitions fail to choose primaries and how frequency those happen. Still, to compute table-level or server-level metrics just aggregate on partition-level ones.
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.
#1331
In perf counters, there's only one metric for partition_guardian, namely
the number of operations that fail to choose the primary replica, which
is server-level. It would be changed to partition-level in new metrics
since this could give which partitions fail to choose primaries and how
frequency those happen. Still, to compute table-level or server-level
metrics just aggregate on partition-level ones.