> On Dec 18, 2023, at 21:20, Walt Karas <wka...@yahooinc.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Is the current naming based on some SNMP MIB spec?
Doubtful, we had one 20+ years ago, but not any more.
>
> Personally, my indifference is boundless. This change will I think lead to
> some logistic aggravation, due to scripts that take metrics output as input.
Yes, there’s definitely logistic issues here.
>
> Any chance it's worth it to make the prefix configurable?
Not easily, because we have tools (such as traffic_top) which has hardcoded the
metrics name. I did indeed try this route first, but it was difficult to find a
solution that works with our tools. traffic_top (etc.) doesn’t read
records.yaml, so it won’t know a change to the prefix.
— Leif
>
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 9:41 PM James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On 18 Dec 2023, at 1:28 pm, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Through all our cleanup and refactoring in the past, as far as I can
>> tell, all metrics are now prefixed with proxy.process.
>>>
>>> This seems a little superfluous. I’d like to suggests one of two options:
>>>
>>> 1. Just drop the prefix entirely.
>>>
>>> 2. Replace the prefix with “ats”.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> What would be the impact on existing deployments?
>>
>> J
