ddanielr commented on PR #3600:
URL: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pull/3600#issuecomment-1634736668

   > > I can see both viewpoints. Having metric names change between versions 
is irritating and could cause issues as monitors / alarms break or change with 
the version, and could make trending across versions problematic. On the other 
hand, having a broken metric so that I cannot monitor my system as intended and 
I can't get it fixed until the next major release does not seem ideal either,
   > 
   > I don't have an opinion about making this change in 2.1 because I don't 
know enough. I am curious though, want to try to understand the implications. 
Reading the above point and earlier points it seems like the current metric 
name is buggy. Is a potential problem with fixing it in 2.1 that someone may 
have adapted to the buggy name and still have been able to use it?
   
   The problem is two-fold. 
   1. If a user implements a RegistryFactory with a MeterRegistry type that 
does not support a `_` separator, then there is a possibility that the metric 
registration will fail. I do not know if this is a graceful failure and would 
require more testing. 
   
   2. Having a non-compliant separator means that micrometer conversions for 
metric names could be unpredictable. 
       If we provide conversion examples in our documentation but those aren't 
followed for a couple of metric names then 
       that could be problematic. 
   
   I think targeting 2.1 to fix the possible meterRegistry failure is in-scope 
of a bug fix change. 
   
   Overall I think we may need a better structure for the metric generation to 
help simplify management and generation of any corresponding documentation. 
Similarly to how the [Property 
docs](https://accumulo.apache.org/docs/2.x/configuration/server-properties) are 
generated.  
   
   
   
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to