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

Handle pre-aggregated metrics #51

Closed
mikehale opened this issue Apr 18, 2013 · 3 comments
Closed

Handle pre-aggregated metrics #51

mikehale opened this issue Apr 18, 2013 · 3 comments

Comments

@mikehale
Copy link

In the case of AWS cloudwatch, data has already been collected and aggregated over a 60 second period. Cloudwatch provides access to min, max, avg, sum, and sample count values for this 60 second period. I'd like a way to route these raw data points through l2met without any additional aggregation happening on them. For example, sending the following event to l2met:

$stdout.puts("measure.elb.latency.min=0.000s measure.elb.latency.max=1.660s measure.elb.latency.sum=2715.167s measure.elb.latency.sample_count=67448s source=elb018876.us-east-1d measure.time=1366295100")

Would produce the following metrics:

  • measure.elb.latency.min
  • measure.elb.latency.max
  • measure.elb.latency.sum
  • measure.elb.latency.sample_count

The metrics would all have a source of elb018876.us-east-1d and would be timestamped at the value of measure.time (1366295100).

I'm not tied to the exact formatting of the above, I mainly wanted a concrete example to show the desired result of passing pre-aggregated metrics through l2met. This example seeks to use l2met not as an aggregation tool, but simply as a way to route structured log data to a metric storage service in a way that does not require the originating application to be tightly coupled to the metric storage and visualization service. i.e STDOUT plus drains.

@mikehale
Copy link
Author

Having this in place would allow me to eliminate m2met.

@ryandotsmith
Copy link
Owner

@mikehale I think the proposed changes in #69 would handle this case. Correct me if I am wrong.

@mikehale
Copy link
Author

@ryandotsmith agree.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants