> On Dec 20, 2023, at 11:07 AM, Miles Libbey <mlib...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Could these tools do something like call traffic_ctl config get
> proxy.config.metric_prefix instead of loading the full records.config?
Good idea. Yeh, they probably could, requires more work than I was willing to
invest at the time. :). I can look again.
— Leif
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 9:03 PM Leif Hedstrom <apachezw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>
