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
Hi,
in my usecases I am often missing following two fields:
Number of cpus: Since user_p can raise to a maximum of 100%*(Number of CPUs), I want to show these important limit to the users. If "cpu_per_core" is configured to false (to ensure a compact data file), it would be great to have the "Number of CPUs" always in the "cpu" record.
If process is configured to true, I don't know how to calculate the "system_p" information for each process line. It would be helpful to have this value also in the "cpu" record beside the already existing "user_p" value?
What do you think about that?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
githubmui
changed the title
Important new fields in Topbeats?
Missing fields in Topbeats?
May 7, 2016
A further issue is to provide the fields "load1", "load5" and "load15" also on Windows. Would be really great to compare windows and linux machines in one kibana diagram.
For metricbeat I seperated cpu and core stats into two separate metricsets (Add CPU percentage and Cores metricset #1596). I like the idea of adding the total number of cores to the metricset.
Closing this issue as it was initially opened for Topbeat and Topbeat was superset by Metricbeat. For missing features in Metricbeat please open a new issue.
Hi,
in my usecases I am often missing following two fields:
Number of cpus: Since user_p can raise to a maximum of 100%*(Number of CPUs), I want to show these important limit to the users. If "cpu_per_core" is configured to false (to ensure a compact data file), it would be great to have the "Number of CPUs" always in the "cpu" record.
If process is configured to true, I don't know how to calculate the "system_p" information for each process line. It would be helpful to have this value also in the "cpu" record beside the already existing "user_p" value?
What do you think about that?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: