From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15C2A62296 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 17:43:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 022E52DF55 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 17:43:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 391B22DF4A for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 17:43:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F079745F03; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 17:43:24 +0200 (CEST) To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Alexandre Derumier <aderumier@odiso.com>, Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com> References: <20201006115850.1026534-1-aderumier@odiso.com> <589366911.632.1602568628596@webmail.proxmox.com> <CAMGxVzAM2f1sbUZKwkSJ+bhRf6Zt1xbfRZnVwWAk2owJvOwZxg@mail.gmail.com> <192891807.455.1603439430434@webmail.proxmox.com> <CAMGxVzAqdVyYZ4-1vOvfmVtAcmZtPs1fVzo7XH2EXCxLDGb5zw@mail.gmail.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <bec21b42-05fe-a3c3-a7ec-e2a53a6887aa@proxmox.com> Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 17:43:23 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:83.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/83.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <CAMGxVzAqdVyYZ4-1vOvfmVtAcmZtPs1fVzo7XH2EXCxLDGb5zw@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.067 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.108 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-manager] pvestatd: stream host pressure counters X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 15:43:56 -0000 On 24.10.20 15:46, Alexandre Derumier wrote: >> Sounds reasonable. We just need to find a way to add new values >> in a compatible way. >=20 > Last time in 2013, we had added a new rrd "pve2.3-vm/" > https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2013-January/005612.html that'd drop all old statistics, and be a bit of a nuisance to upgrade ins= ide a cluster (old nodes get stuff they do not comprehend). We may rather want to have a new, separate, file for this. We could add general support for and error handling now, and to the final= add with 7.0 next year or so. Maybe there's even a way to add it now without = other nodes producing errors, but from top of my head I am not sure.. In Proxmox Backup Server we have each metric in a separate file, makes it= a bit easier to extend on. # ls -l /var/lib/proxmox-backup/rrdb/host/ total 160 -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 cpu -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 io_ticks -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 iowait -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 loadavg -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 memtotal -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 memused -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 netin -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 netout -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 read_bytes -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 read_ios -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Jun 4 18:03 read_ticks -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 May 28 13:00 roottotal -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 May 28 13:00 rootused -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 swaptotal -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 swapused -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 total -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 used -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 write_bytes -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Oct 23 07:45 write_ios -rw-r--r-- 1 backup backup 6008 Jun 4 18:03 write_ticks We could say we keep the base stuff as is in a single file and add the new one with a "<vmid>.<metric-name>" scheme.