Analyze naming conventions for (monotonic) counter metrics

[trask]

Related to #211 and #212

Here are existing (monotonic) counter metric names:

• faas.coldstarts
• faas.errors
• faas.invocations
• faas.timeouts
• db.client.connection.timeouts
• messaging.kafka.messages
• messaging.kafka.requests.failed
• messaging.kafka.isr.operations
• messaging.kafka.leader.elections
• messaging.kafka.leader.unclean-elections
• hw.energy
• hw.errors
• hw.host.energy
• hw.network.packets
• hw.tape_drive.operations
• hw.*.errors
• process.context_switches
• process.paging.faults
• jvm.classes.loaded
• jvm.classes.unloaded
• system.paging.faults
• system.paging.operations
• system.disk.operations
• system.network.dropped
• system.network.packets
• system.network.errors

.io

• messaging.kafka.network.io
• hw.gpu.io
• hw.network.io
• process.disk.io
• process.network.io
• system.disk.io
• system.network.io

.time

• process.cpu.time
• jvm.cpu.time
• system.cpu.time

.*_time

• system.disk.io_time
• system.disk.operation_time

[trask]

An open question for me is whether we want to rename the first group to be something like:

• faas.coldstart.count
• faas.error.count
• faas.invocation.count
• faas.timeout.count
• ...

the main(?) advantage of doing this is that it opens up the (implicit) namespaces for metric attributes on these metrics, e.g.

• faas.coldstart.*
• faas.error.*
• faas.invocation.*
• faas.timeout.*
• ...

[mateuszrzeszutek]

An open question for me is whether we want to rename the first group to be something like:

• faas.coldstart.count
• faas.error.count
• faas.invocation.count
• faas.timeout.count

Aren't we already using the .count suffix for UpDownCounters representing the current state of the system? E.g. jvm.cpu.count, jvm.class.count

[jack-berg]

Aren't we already using the .count suffix for UpDownCounters representing the current state of the system?

Yes, but this is in line with the current advice for UpDownCounters. Counters don't follow that but IMO it means that naming of counters is inconsistent and lacks guidance.

Metric names follow the general form: {NAMESPACE}.{DESCRIPTIVE_NOUN}

Where {NAMESPACE} hierarchical, delimited by ..

And where {DESCRIPTIVE_NOUN} is a noun describing what values the metric captures, relative to the namespace.

My hope is that we could have a well defined set of {DESCRIPTIVE_NOUN} options that we can pick from for almost all situations. We have the start of that dictionary in the instrument naming section, but there are some notable exceptions. For example, duration is omitted, count is omitted (even tho its recommended for up down counters), and we say the following which makes counters the wild west:

Other instruments that do not fit the above descriptions may be named more freely. For example, system.paging.faults and system.network.packets. Units do not need to be specified in the names since they are included during instrument creation, but can be added if there is ambiguity.

[jack-berg]

Oh just saw #211 where this is already being discussed.

[trask]

yeah, this issue is specifically to explore, as you said above, "the wild west of counter naming"

[trask]

a couple more on their way in #163:

• messaging.publish.messages
• messaging.receive.messages

[jack-berg]

Any reason these shouldn't all just have a suffix *.count?

I would think the counter argument would be that the prometheus compatibility document states that monotonic sums have the _total suffix added, and obviously *_count_total is weird. But we should be able to adjust that rule to say strip "count", and add "total".

[joaopgrassi]

This was closed by mistake by the stale bot. Re-opening