Thanks for putting that together Sandy. Very nice! >From my perspective, there are two major things that are undesirable for us:
1) Putting this data through the queue is not something that feels right. We'd like to have to option to use other types of data "sinks" from the generation points. Some folks might want to use the queues, but we do not wish to burden the queueing system with this volume of data. In some cases, we will just drop these into log files for later collection and aggregation. 2) We would like a common mechanism for instrumenting but we would like to be able to route data to any number of places: local file, datagram endpoint, etc. Now, getting the lower level measurement library consistent is definitely the right approach. I still think we need to support decorators in addition to monkey patching. And, we should make the gauges or whatever we call them usable with different "sinks". On Nov 1, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Sandy Walsh wrote: > Hey! > > Here's a first pass at a proposal for unifying StackTach/Ceilometer and other > instrumentation/metering/monitoring efforts. > > It's v1, so bend, spindle, mutilate as needed ... but send feedback! > > http://wiki.openstack.org/UnifiedInstrumentationMetering > > Thanks, > Sandy > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack > Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
