Add Metrics About StorageClass #777
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
internal/collector/storageclass.go
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ | |||
| /* | |||
| Copyright 2017 The Kubernetes Authors All rights reserved. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Copyright 2017 The Kubernetes Authors All rights reserved. | |
| Copyright 2019 The Kubernetes Authors All rights reserved. |
internal/collector/storageclass.go
Outdated
| Metrics: []*metric.Metric{ | ||
| { | ||
| LabelKeys: []string{"resource_version"}, | ||
| LabelValues: []string{string(s.ObjectMeta.ResourceVersion)}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As far as I know ResourceVersion is increased for each change propagated from etcd. Thus this metric would create a new timeseries for each change of the object. How often do you expect this Kubernetes object to change?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The ResourceVersion can be changed only when object is updated, but we won't update it usually, so I think it will not change freequently.
|
You need to add |
Thank you, got it |
|
Can you address @mxinden's comment and also squash the commit history once this is good to merge? |
internal/collector/storageclass.go
Outdated
| Metrics: []*metric.Metric{ | ||
| { | ||
| LabelKeys: []string{"resource_version"}, | ||
| LabelValues: []string{s.ObjectMeta.ResourceVersion}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm still a little sceptic about this. If at all, why wouldn't this be the metric's value?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I refer to other code which use ResourceVersion as metric, I found all of them use 1 as metric's value.
for example: kube_secret_metadata_resource_version, kube_configmap_metadata_resource_version and kube_ingress_metadata_resource_version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wow, you're totally right the other metrics do that, but it's wrong, we should have never merged those. Thanks for noticing! We should add these to the breaking release issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should skip this one or model it in a different way for now. Do you have a concrete alerting use case in mind?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I remove resource_version for the time being, and I think it's not necessary to alert about storageclass, I only want to monitor its info.
|
Thanks! /lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: brancz, xieyanker The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
What this PR does / why we need it:
Add Some Metrics About StorageClass
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes #775