Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 31 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upProm2: Protobuf Exposition Format Support? #2788
Comments
snarlysodboxer
referenced this issue
May 31, 2017
Closed
Support exposing metrics as Protocol Buffer messages #108
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
The current tendency (but no final call) is that text format works really well and allows us to do some fancy ingestion optimisations. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
I am aware of one (internal) application that's proto only, but once client_golang supports timestamps I presume it'll switch over. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
I have a number of concerns about dropping protobuf support, beyond the question if client libraries support the text format or not. I'm not sure if a GH issue is the right place to make the final call. Perhaps open a shared Google doc and develop that into a design-doc/RFC? @fabxc It would be great if you could document the ingestion optimizations there. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
kongchen
commented
Jun 8, 2017
•
|
Some of our service's metrics size reaches 10MB in text format and we're currently moving to protocol buffer format, cannot imaging pb is not supported in future. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@kongchen from what we have gathered so far, the wire size does not substantially differ between protobuf and text format+gzip. Have you compared the two in terms of size and latency? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
In fact, gzip'd text format is smaller than uncompressed proto format. However, usually both are compressed, and then the size is really not much different. Things changes in scenarios where compression is not an option. With the dramatically increased ingestion efficiency of Prom2, I can imagine that the cost of compression becomes relevant even on the side of the Prometheus server. (On the side of the monitored target, it's even more likely that compression is a relevant cost.) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
kongchen
commented
Jun 14, 2017
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Prometheus 2 uses dramatically less CPU for ingestion anyway. The CPU you need for compression is very small compared to that. (What I meant above is that the CPU cycles needed for compression only become relevant because Prom2 uses so little CPU for the rest of the ingestion.) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
kongchen
commented
Jun 14, 2017
|
Thanks, look forward to it! |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
SimenB
commented
Jun 17, 2017
|
Speaking of prometheus v2, is there an issue/document with what it'll contain/change? I see the milestone (https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/milestone/4) but no general issue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@SimenB Let's keep this issue on topic (please ask general questions on the mailing lists or chat), but https://prometheus.io/blog/2017/06/21/prometheus-20-alpha3-new-rule-format/ covers some of that. |
brian-brazil
added
priority/Pmaybe
kind/enhancement
labels
Jul 14, 2017
This was referenced Aug 4, 2017
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
SimenB
commented
Oct 13, 2017
|
Now that Prometheus 2 is in RC, should we conclude that protobuf support is out? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Not sure if there was a final call, but at another occasion, I wrote something down about text vs. protobuf: https://github.com/RichiH/OpenMetrics/blob/master/protobuf_vs_text.md |
gouthamve
referenced this issue
Nov 2, 2017
Closed
Prometheus 2 yields "no token found" when parsing Quobyte exports #3395
This was referenced Jan 8, 2018
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
zegelin
commented
Feb 12, 2018
•
|
Can the documentation be updated to reflect the decision to remove protobuf support? Currently https://prometheus.io/docs/instrumenting/exposition_formats/ lists protobuf as "Supported in | Prometheus version >=0.4.0", yet version 2.1.0 doesn't support protobuf. A custom exporter application I wrote used the protobuf format. After I upgraded to 2.1.0 I was wondering why I was getting errors |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@zegelin Good point, see prometheus/docs#972 |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@brian-brazil I belive this can also be closed |
brian-brazil
closed this
Feb 17, 2018
yurishkuro
referenced this issue
Mar 3, 2018
Closed
Problem with "/metrics" link on production environment #697
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
lock
bot
commented
Mar 22, 2019
|
This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
snarlysodboxer commentedMay 31, 2017
•
edited
There seems to be some question as to whether the Protobuf Exposition Format will be supported in Prometheus 2.0. If it's not going to be supported, we assume we should stop developing Prometheus 1.X Protobuf code in all client libraries.
Thanks!