-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 519
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Query Frontend Refactor: Metrics Query Range #3584
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
if samplingRate != nil { | ||
fRate := samplingRate.(float64) | ||
|
||
if fRate != 0.0 { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: can skip this when rate == 1.0. Maybe switch to fRate < 1.0
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the 0.0 check is just a sanity check to prevent panics. fRate < 1.0 && fRate > 0.0
. would there ever be a time we deflated metrics with the rate?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, the sampling rate will always be between 0 and 1 due to the check in the sharder: https://github.com/grafana/tempo/pull/3584/files#diff-85974350e62b77bee6b5d88d537e3946839ccb1bba5f6dc89450a1c5489b5d4fR364
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
good catch. updated to the suggested condition
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Joe Elliott <number101010@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM and nice work. I look forward to glorious streaming metrics panels!
I think in the future yes, but not required for this PR. Even after we make the next round of changes that brings the metrics read path much closer to the search read path, I still expect the minimum throughout and latency to be different.
Yeah open to another reshuffle if it makes sense. |
In #3584 we decided to count metrics queries as part of search slo. split metrics slo out of search because metrics are still experimental and should not share the SLO with search.
What this PR does:
Moves the final frontend endpoint (metrics query range) over to the new streaming pipeline. Note that the streaming is done in a naive fashion. We simply return whatever is available every 500ms. After this is integrated into a frontend we will revisit and determine what a good streaming pattern will be.
Open Questions
Other changes:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #3413
Checklist
CHANGELOG.md
updated - the order of entries should be[CHANGE]
,[FEATURE]
,[ENHANCEMENT]
,[BUGFIX]