[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [hono-dev] Metrics for processing command responses
|
On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 12:03 +0000, Kalidass Kartheeswaran (INST/ECS4) wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hono-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <hono-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
> Hudalla Kai (INST/ECS4)
> Sent: Montag, 10. Dezember 2018 11:59
> To: hono-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [hono-dev] Metrics for processing command responses
>
>
> On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 09:09 +0100, Jens Reimann wrote:
> > Why not always name it "hono.messages.processed" and then:
>
> +1. It sounds good.
>
> > * either tag both request and response with "type=command" and
> > "command=request"/"command="response"
> > * or tag with "type=request", "type=response"
> >
>
> what about using tags
>
> type = command
> type = command-response
>
> For me both sounds good and I see only a slight difference. IMHO I would prefer
> with type="command" and command="request/response". The "type=command" here
> clearly denotes only the type of messages as for telemetry and event messages.
> More information such as response or request can be defined with another tag
> "command=request/response".
>
In that case I would, however, prefer to call the other (qualifying) tag
"direction" or "dir" instead of "command", which IMHO would be very confusing.
I would also propose to use tag for distinguishing between one-way commands and
command request messages.
So, we would end up with
one-way command: type = "command"
command request message: type = "command", dir = "request"
command response message: type = "command", dir = "response"
WDYT?
> > That would make more sense to me than to create new metrics.
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 5:01 PM Kalidass Kartheeswaran (INST/ECS4) <
> > Kartheeswaran.Kalidass@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hi Kai,
> > >
> > > Thank you for the response. I tried to group based on the direction
> > > of the messages (downstream/upstream). If it has been already
> > > deliberately decided to group based on request/response, which is
> > > another logical way of grouping, then it makes sense to me to track
> > > command request messages with metric "hono.messages.processed" with
> > > type "command". Also the payload size can be tracked using
> > > "hono.messages.processed.payload", which is not available currently
> > > for commands. The existing separate metric could be used to track
> > > command responses. The naming of "hono.commands.response.delivered"
> > > doesn't seem to be in consistence with that of requests. IMHO
> > > something like "hono.responses.processed" with type "command" seems be more
> > > consistent. And so the command responses payload with
> > > "hono.responses.processed.payload".
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Kartheeswaran Kalidass
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: hono-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <hono-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On
> > > Behalf Of Hudalla Kai (INST/ECS4)
> > > Sent: Freitag, 7. Dezember 2018 10:43
> > > To: hono-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [hono-dev] Metrics for processing command responses
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2018-12-06 at 14:21 +0000, Kalidass Kartheeswaran (INST/ECS4)
> > > wrote:
> > > > Dear Hono community,
> > > >
> > > > Currently I work on the implementation of metrics for the AMQP
> > > > adapter and thanks Kai for bringing to notice about the metric
> > > > "hono.commands.response.delivered". This metric is currently being
> > > > used only to track the number of command responses processed by
> > > > the protocol adapters. There is an already existing metric
> > > > "hono.messages.processed", which tracks the number of successfully
> > > > processed messages by the protocol adapters. The telemetry
> > > > messages are tracked with type as "telemetry" and so the events.
> > > > This metric "hono.messages.processed" with type "command" is
> > > > better suited also to
> > > track the number of command responses.
> > >
> > > I am not sure if hono.messages.processed would actually be better
> > > suited in this case. For telemetry and events we are using the
> > > metric for request messages, not reponses. Using it for keeping
> > > track of command responses seems a little odd. I know that from a
> > > technical perspective it seems similar because all three (telemetry,
> > > event, command response) are sent from the device to the adapter and
> > > so could be handled similarly. However, using the same metric for
> > > tracking telemetry and event request messages but on the other hand command
> > > responses seems a little odd to me.
> > >
> > > > FMPOV, in addition to the count, the payload size of command
> > > > responses can also be tracked by using the metric
> > > > "hono.messages.processed.payload". Currently no metrics keep track
> > > > of the
> > > payload size of command responses.
> > > >
> > > > Hence I would propose the below:
> > > > 1. use the metric "hono.messages.processed" (with type "command")
> > > > to track the number of successfully processed command responses
> > > > and drop the metric "hono.commands.response.delivered" from Hono.
> > > > 2. use the metric "hono.messages.processed.payload" (with type
> > > > "command") to track the payload size of the successfully processed
> > > > command
> > > responses.
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > >
> > > IIRC we deliberately chose to use a different metric for tracking
> > > commands and their responses because they are different from
> > > telemetry and events in that they can be request/response. However,
> > > for consistency reasons we might want to actually start using
> > > hono.messages.processed also for command _request_ messages (incl.
> > > one-way commands) and just use a separate metric for keeping track
> > > of command responses. I think that also would make the implementation of
> > > dashboards on top of these metrics easier to implement ...
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
> > > >
> > > > Kartheeswaran Kalidass
> > > >
> > > > Engineering Cloud Services 4 Bosch IoT Hub (INST/ECS4) Bosch
> > > > Software Innovations GmbH | Stuttgarter Straße 130 | 71332
> > > > Waiblingen | GERMANY
> > > > > www.bosch-si.com Kartheeswaran.Kalidass@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > Sitz: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg; HRB
> > > > 148411 B
> > > > Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Lücke; Geschäftsführung: Dr.
> > > > Stefan Ferber, Michael Hahn, Dr. Aleksandar Mitrovic
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > hono-dev mailing list
> > > > hono-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> > > > unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > > > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/hono-dev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > hono-dev mailing list
> > > hono-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> > > unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/hono-dev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > hono-dev mailing list
> > > hono-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> > > unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/hono-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hono-dev mailing list
> > hono-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> > unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/hono-dev
> _______________________________________________
> hono-dev mailing list
> hono-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
> this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/hono-dev
> _______________________________________________
> hono-dev mailing list
> hono-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
> this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/hono-dev
