Skip to content
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

range-op data extraction inconsistency #332

Closed
juliusv opened this Issue Jul 15, 2013 · 2 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
1 participant
@juliusv
Copy link
Member

juliusv commented Jul 15, 2013

There is an inconsistency during value extraction for range ops (not range-at-interval ops) when a query crosses the boundary between memory and disk. At the disk/memory boundary, e.g. a rate will drop by a small amount for the duration of the op's range.

To reproduce:

  1. monitor a client_golang/examples/random instance
  2. wait for the first flush to disk
  3. do a rate(rpc_calls_total[5m]) query
  4. observe how the rate slightly dips at the mem/disk boundary

@ghost ghost assigned juliusv Jul 15, 2013

@juliusv

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

juliusv commented Jul 15, 2013

This is caused by the drop in time precision between memory and disk. Disk keeps only seconds, while memory keeps a whole time.Time for each datapoint. Now the question is, do we just want to live with that or also drop the precision in memory?

Pro for keeping higher precision in memory: better fidelity of in-memory data, especially for rates computed over it, which benefits rules, which usually access only in-memory data, so recorded rates are more precise and have less "bumps".

Con: there's a tiny bump (especially in rates) at the border between what's currently in memory and what's on disk. The bump is non-persistent and will be gone (or rather, move to a different position) on the next flush.

@juliusv juliusv closed this Oct 27, 2013

simonpasquier pushed a commit to simonpasquier/prometheus that referenced this issue Oct 12, 2017

Merge pull request prometheus#332 from jonnenauha/patch-1
Add Varnish exporter to 3rd party section
@lock

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

lock bot commented Mar 25, 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.

@lock lock bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 25, 2019

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
You can’t perform that action at this time.