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

Document *.client.{system}.* ordering in the metric naming #1494

Open
lmolkova opened this issue Oct 18, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #1708
Open

Document *.client.{system}.* ordering in the metric naming #1494

lmolkova opened this issue Oct 18, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #1708
Labels

Comments

@lmolkova
Copy link
Contributor

lmolkova commented Oct 18, 2024

We need to decide on a pattern for system-specific client/server metrics.

The pattern for client/server is {domain}.client.metric_name and {domain}.server.metric_name (e.g. http.client.request.duration and http.server.request.duration).

For db/messaging/rpc/genai/etc, we'll need to take into account system-specific metrics and have a consistent place for the system identifier.

E.g.

  1. db.cosmosdb.client.* and db.cosmosdb.server.*
    vs
  2. db.client.cosmosdb.* and db.server.cosmosdb.*

Option 1 (*.{system}.client.*) is aligned better with attribute naming pattern ({domain}.{system}.attribute_name).
Option 2 (*.client.{system}.*) is aligned better with metric naming pattern ({domain}.client.{system}.metric_name).

There is no obvious advantage of one options versus the other, but keeping things consistent is important. Let's pick one option and document it as a guidance.

@lmolkova
Copy link
Contributor Author

lmolkova commented Oct 18, 2024

I have a slight preference for Option 2 (since we're picking a metric name pattern, it's more important to align with metric names than attribute names).

I.e. we'd have db.client.operation.duration and db.client.cosmosdb.metric_name.

@joaopgrassi
Copy link
Member

I also prefer option 2. That aligns nicely with existing metrics (e.g, HTTP).

@lmolkova lmolkova linked a pull request Dec 21, 2024 that will close this issue
3 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants