1

Topic: Broad gulls vs Routes vs Metrics

Colleagues, At us in a command dispute concerning that one this and the same or different things. One state that it is strongly different entities and it is necessary to do three classes and three calls in  a method. , , sent metrics. Others say that it is an overhead projector and enough one essence - a broad gull. Caused one method and all on it, he already in itself(himself) decides what to write down in prometeus for metrics, and by default all  in a broad gull. While at such approach it is not visible , i.e. we presume not to aggregate to ourselves on the client of the metrics, and all  on udp in a local network. What sharing at you? Why it such? Whether there are powerful arguments that it was such as at you, instead of differently.

2

Re: Broad gulls vs Routes vs Metrics

Hello, Gattaka, you wrote: G> Colleagues, G> At us in a command dispute concerning that one this and the same or different things. G> one state that it is strongly different entities Here they [basically] are right. G> also it is necessary to do three classes and three calls in  a method. These are insignificant details of specific implementation. G> others say that it is an overhead projector and enough one essence - a broad gull. Caused one method and all on it, he already in itself(himself) decides what to write down in prometeus for metrics, and by default all  in a broad gull. These are insignificant details of specific implementation. G> while at such approach it is not visible , i.e. we presume not to aggregate to ourselves on the client of the metrics, and all  on udp in a local network. G> what sharing at you? Why it such? Whether there are powerful arguments that it was such as at you, instead of differently. Yes, we write to a broad gull, and already any analysts are under construction of a broad gull. It is made so because from client side there can be any device (even the most feeble), and from a server farm mass of idle computing powers and improbable volume of storage. Thus it is possible to build any arbitrary trejsy/metrics, for any current and historical period that, obviously, not  to do in a case if from the client merged restricted, already processed, trejsy/metrics and [interesting now] the crude data . By experience even if the strong-willed optimistical decision was accepted that "is enough to store 640 kilobyte broad gulls for six months", upon, rather regularly there are questions "and as something / developed / in dynamics since 10 months ago", on it a period of storage of crude dens approximately 18 months. But also after that broad gulls are not deleted, and carefully press close the maximum compression, are written on a ribbon and postponed in archive.

3

Re: Broad gulls vs Routes vs Metrics

G> One state that it is strongly different entities and it is necessary to do three classes and three calls in  a method. , , sent metrics. G> others say that it is an overhead projector and enough one essence - a broad gull. Caused one method and all on it, he already in itself(himself) decides what to write down in prometeus for metrics, and by default all  in a broad gull.  invent? Take the ready decision, type Nloga any, and do not hammer to itself in a head side tasks. PS if, of course, you new  do not write

4

Re: Broad gulls vs Routes vs Metrics

SK> By experience even if the strong-willed optimistical decision was accepted that "is enough to store 640 kilobyte broad gulls for six months", upon, rather regularly there are questions "and as something / developed / in dynamics since 10 months ago", on it a period of storage of crude dens approximately 18 months. But also after that broad gulls are not deleted, and carefully press close the maximum compression, are written on a ribbon and postponed in archive. And what for data domain at you?

5

Re: Broad gulls vs Routes vs Metrics

Hello, Temnikov, you wrote: T> And what for data domain at you? Crisis IT consulting for the companies "b2c". Your company dies stopped in development? Then you should call us. To wait, the next year contracts are painted.

6

Re: Broad gulls vs Routes vs Metrics

Hello, Gattaka, you wrote: G> Colleagues, G> At us in a command dispute concerning that one this and the same or different things. G> one state that it is strongly different entities and it is necessary to do three classes and three calls in  a method. , , sent metrics. G> others say that it is an overhead projector and enough one essence - a broad gull. Caused one method and all on it, he already in itself(himself) decides what to write down in prometeus for metrics, and by default all  in a broad gull. G> while at such approach it is not visible , i.e. we presume not to aggregate to ourselves on the client of the metrics, and all  on udp in a local network. G> what sharing at you? Why it such? Whether there are powerful arguments that it was such as at you, instead of differently. 1) That such routes? (Type trace logs?) 2) Broad gulls and metrics well absolutely different things. It how to compare the call counter f-ii and a course of performance of this f-ii. For dens it is possible log4net, for metrics prometheus or nagios or still that.

7

Re: Broad gulls vs Routes vs Metrics

Hello, Gattaka, you wrote: G> What sharing at you? Why it such? Whether there are powerful arguments that it was such as at you, instead of differently. In 1005001 time I will repeat that all depends on the task. Broad gulls normally must have,  - a part of dens,  adjustments. Normally broad gulls put proceeding from common sense and what that requirements are not present though faced cases when broad gulls were a part business  financial systems.  a madhouse. Metrics start to collect normally when loading grows. Start with standard (cpu, ram, i/o disk + network), having cut away about a hedgehog start to think . Under Windows performance counters ideally for this purpose approach.

8

Re: Broad gulls vs Routes vs Metrics

Hello, Gattaka, you wrote: G> At us in a command dispute concerning that one this and the same or different things. G> one state that it is strongly different entities and it is necessary to do three classes and three calls in  a method. , , sent metrics. G> others say that it is an overhead projector and enough one essence - a broad gull. Caused one method and all on it, he already in itself(himself) decides what to write down in prometeus for metrics, and by default all  in a broad gull. G> while at such approach it is not visible , i.e. we presume not to aggregate to ourselves on the client of the metrics, and all  on udp in a local network. G> what sharing at you? Why it such? Whether there are powerful arguments that it was such as at you, instead of differently. Broad gulls it normally sequence of calls of functions. They can include metrics, and can and not include. Broad gulls - sequences. Metrics - frequencies, counters, values during the specific moment of time and . Owing to it they gather in different places absolutely on a miscellaneous. For example in function you can write down broad gulls. But you cannot write down in the same place neither frequency of calls, nor runtime, for example, the storage expenditure. It becomes in essence other means. Routes it as far as I understand, certain level , for example at level  we start to bring down in broad gulls nearly all successively.