On 18 Jun 2015 at 04:44:18, gordon chung (g...@live.ca) wrote:
On 17/06/2015 12:57 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Simon Pasquier wrote:
>
>> I'm still struggling to see how these optimizations would be implemented
>> since the current Gnocchi design has separate backends for ind
On 17/06/2015 12:57 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Simon Pasquier wrote:
I'm still struggling to see how these optimizations would be implemented
since the current Gnocchi design has separate backends for indexing and
storage which means that datapoints (id + timestamp + value) an
On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Simon Pasquier wrote:
I'm still struggling to see how these optimizations would be implemented
since the current Gnocchi design has separate backends for indexing and
storage which means that datapoints (id + timestamp + value) and metric
metadata (tenant_id, instance_id, se
Hi,
Originally, I posted this question on the review [0] that adds InfluxDB
support to Gnocchi but Julien felt that it wasn't relevant in the scope of
the review. Still I think that it deserves some discussion...
The current implementation of the InfluxDB driver for Gnocchi doesn't
follow the rec
