Great feedback as well, thanks.
I will add both metrics:
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="other"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="unknown"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="ok"} 1
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="nonCriticalUpper"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="criticalUpper"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="nonRecoverableUpper"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="nonCriticalLower"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="criticalLower"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="nonRecoverableLower"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="failed"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="2",statusName="other"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="2",statusName="unknown"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="2",statusName="ok"} 1
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="2",statusName="nonCriticalUpper"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="2",statusName="criticalUpper"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="2",statusName="nonRecoverableUpper"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="2",statusName="nonCriticalLower"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="2",statusName="criticalLower"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="2",statusName="nonRecoverableLower"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="2",statusName="failed"} 0
idrac_amperage_probe_status_code{index="1"} 3
idrac_amperage_probe_status_code{index="2"} 3
and probably make them configurable (which to show).
Am Di., 19. Juli 2022 um 12:18 Uhr schrieb Stuart Clark <
[email protected]>:
> On 19/07/2022 10:41, Roman Baeriswyl wrote:
> > Why not both:
> >
> >
> idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="other",statusNumber="1"}
> > 0
> >
> idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="unknown",statusNumber="2"}
>
> > 0
> > idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="ok",statusNumber="3"} 1
> >
> idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="nonCriticalUpper",statusNumber="4"}
>
> > 0
> >
> idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="criticalUpper",statusNumber="5"}
>
> > 0
> >
> idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="nonRecoverableUpper",statusNumber="6"}
>
> > 0
> >
> idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="nonCriticalLower",statusNumber="7"}
>
> > 0
> >
> idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="criticalLower",statusNumber="8"}
>
> > 0
> >
> idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="nonRecoverableLower",statusNumber="9"}
>
> > 0
> >
> idrac_amperage_probe_status{index="1",statusName="failed",statusNumber="10"}
>
> > 0
> >
> > This way, one can use the name or the number if that would be easier
> > (for < or > checks).
>
> The downside with numeric statuses is that you need more knowledge to
> use them compared with the label method. I have to know that 7 = unknown
> or 5 = too hot, etc.
>
> That suggestion wouldn't actually help BTW as the statusNumber is a
> label so you could only use regex matches rather than >/<. If you wanted
> that as well you'd need a separate metric
> (idrac_amperage_probe_status_number or something) that has no labels and
> just the 1-10 value.
>
> The value of that purely numeric status metric also depends on what the
> status values actually are. It might be more useful for things which
> "progress" (good, poor, bad, broken) but probably not for statuses which
> are unrelated (network error, disk error, hardware fault, temperature
> error) as you are unlikely to use >/<
>
> --
> Stuart Clark
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prometheus Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prometheus-users/CA%2BKmifHtdqfozZEuS4WFMAOT9Amrmqsm4Q5C%2BW_SaryoOLNqeQ%40mail.gmail.com.
