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

The CPU and RAM suggestions return question mark or none #26

Closed
lindaorny opened this issue Apr 26, 2023 · 9 comments · Fixed by #12
Closed

The CPU and RAM suggestions return question mark or none #26

lindaorny opened this issue Apr 26, 2023 · 9 comments · Fixed by #12
Labels
bug Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists

Comments

@lindaorny
Copy link

I executed the krr.py script with -p flag to connect with my local Prometheus but the CPU and Memory suggestions return None. May I know what am I missing here?
mysql_krr_image

@LeaveMyYard
Copy link
Contributor

Hey, @lindaorny!
This seems to be a common issue for some prometheus installations and we are trying to fix it here: #12
Could you check if that branch is working for you?

Also, none is expected, as simple strategy proposes not to place limits on CPU by default

@LeaveMyYard LeaveMyYard added bug Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists labels Apr 26, 2023
@LeaveMyYard LeaveMyYard linked a pull request Apr 26, 2023 that will close this issue
@lindaorny
Copy link
Author

@LeaveMyYard I have changed branch and the CPU metrics worked for me! However, the Memory Requests and Limits are still shown as question mark.
mysql_krr_image2

@muhammad-asn
Copy link

muhammad-asn commented Apr 26, 2023

I used the fix-CPU-metric branch and still show the same CPU Requests --> none.
My kubernetes version is 1.24.6 in on-premise environment.

@muhammad-asn
Copy link

I used the fix-CPU-metric branch and still show the same CPU Requests --> none. My kubernetes version is 1.24.6 in on-premise environment.

Sorry just check my prometheus query and shows the labels in our workload is different from the cpu_metric.py and memory_metric.py.

@aantn
Copy link
Contributor

aantn commented Apr 26, 2023

@muhammad-asn can you share your labels? Perhaps it's possible to support?

@muhammad-asn
Copy link

muhammad-asn commented Apr 26, 2023

@aantn I think it's invalid case from my side. I try with native cadvisor (not robusta) installation and by default it uses (example: container_label_io_kubernetes_pod_name) as the labels so need to do relabeling from the prometheus side.

Based on this label:
google/cadvisor#3162

Sorry for the previous wrong link.

@lindaorny
Copy link
Author

Hey, @lindaorny! This seems to be a common issue for some prometheus installations and we are trying to fix it here: #12 Could you check if that branch is working for you?

Also, none is expected, as simple strategy proposes not to place limits on CPU by default

Seems the memory requests and limits are still returning none.

@lindaorny
Copy link
Author

Hey, @lindaorny! This seems to be a common issue for some prometheus installations and we are trying to fix it here: #12 Could you check if that branch is working for you?
Also, none is expected, as simple strategy proposes not to place limits on CPU by default

Seems the memory requests and limits are still returning none.

Can show the memory limit and request now! Thank you so much!

@aantn
Copy link
Contributor

aantn commented May 7, 2023

@aantn I think it's invalid case from my side. I try with native cadvisor (not robusta) installation and by default it uses (example: container_label_io_kubernetes_pod_name) as the labels so need to do relabeling from the prometheus side.

Got it, thanks. If you find an easy solution, please share here so we can document it for others.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants