Can someone briefly explain what is the difference istio_request_bytes_count and istio_request_bytes_sum?. And why the "istio_request_bytes" standard metric is missing.
Istio Standard Metrics notes that istio_request_bytes is a DISTRIBUTION type metric. In Prometheus, this would appear as a histogram metric. So, you should see three metrics:
istio_request_bytes_count is the number of requests
istio_request_bytes_sum is the total number of bytes, added together across all requests
istio_request_bytes_bucket{le="1024"} is the total number of requests where the request size is 1 KiB or smaller
You can calculate the average request size by dividing the sum by the count. You can also use Prometheus functions like histogram_quantile() to calculate the median (50th-percentile) size.
This also applies to the other standard metrics. A common thing to measure is 95th-percentile latency ("p95"); how long does it take 95% of the requests to execute, where the remaining 5% take longer than this? histogram_quantile(0.95, istio_request_duration_milliseconds_bucket[1h]) could compute this over the most recent hour.
Related
I understand that rate(xyz[5m]) * 60 is the rate of xyz per minute, averaged over 5 mins.
How then would $__rate_interval and $__interval be defined,
possibly in the same syntax?
What format is rate being measured here, in my panel? Per minute, per second?
What is the interval= 30s in my panel here? My scraping interval is set to 5s.
How do i change the rate format?
See New in Grafana 7.2: $__rate_interval for Prometheus rate queries that just work.
Rate is always per second. See Grafana documentation for the rate function.
Click on Query options, then click on the Info-Symbol. An explanation will be displayed.
To get rate per minute, just multiply the rate with 60.
Edit: ($__rate_interval and $_interval)
Prometheus periodically fetches data from your application. Grafana periodically fetches Data from Prometheus. Grafana does not know, how often Prometheus polls your application for data. Grafana will estimate this time by looking at the data. The $__interval variable expands to the duration between two data points in the graph. (Note that this is only true for small time ranges and high resolution as the intended use case for $__interval is reducing the number of data points when the time range is wide. See Approximate Calculation of $__interval.)
If the time-distance between every two data points in each series is 15 seconds, it does not make sense to use anything less than [15s] as interval in the rate function. The rate function works best with at least 4 data points. Therefore [1m] would be much better than anything betweeen [15s] and [1m]. This is what $__rate_interval tries to achieve: guessing a minimal sensible interval for the rate function.
Personally, I think, this does not always work if your application delivers sparse data. I prefer using fixed intervals like 10m or even 1h or 1d in these situations. The interval need to be great enough to get you enough data points for the metric to work with the rate function.
A different approach would be to use any of $__rate_interval and $_interval but also set the Min step parameter for the query in the Grafana UI to be big enough.
My problem is as follows: I would like to create a graph of the percentage use of boxes over 24 hours. However, the box.utilization() function is cumulative, so I tried to solve the problem by creating a dataset that collects the values every hour and an event that resets the utilization so that the next hour is not affected by the previous hour's utilization.
(I attach a picture of the graph I created).
Is there a more efficient way?
I have faced the same issue before. Here is how I handled it:
Instead of cumulative utilization, I calculate the maximum hourly utilization. That is, I record the number of seized resource for every minute and get an array of 60 elements. Then divide the maximum number in that array by the total number of resources available. An example:
I have 100 machines
During an hour, maximum of 60 of them were busy
60/100= 60% maximum utilization during that hour
Then I plot these for each hour.
I'm running Prometheus in a kubernetes cluster. All is running find and my UI pods are counting visitors.
Please ignore the title, what you see here is the query at the bottom of the image. It's a counter. The gaps in the graph are due to pods restarting. I have two pods running simultaneously!
Now suppose I would like to count the total of visitors, so I need to sum over all the pods
This is what I expect considering the first image, right?
However, I don't want the graph to drop when a pod restarts. I would like to have something cumulative over a specified amount of time (somehow ignoring pods restarting). Hope this makes any sense. Any suggestions?
UPDATE
Below is suggested to do the following
Its a bit hard to see because I've plotted everything there, but the suggested answer sum(rate(NumberOfVisitors[1h])) * 3600 is the continues green line there. What I don't understand now is the value of 3 it has? Also why does the value increase after 21:55, because I can see some values before that.
As the approach seems to be ok, I noticed that the actual increase is actually 3, going from 1 to 4. In the graph below I've used just one time series to reduce noise
Rate, then sum, then multiply by the time range in seconds. That will handle rollovers on counters too.
Prometheus doesn't provide the ability to sum counters, which may be reset. Additionally, the increase() function in Prometheus has some issues, which may prevent from using it for querying counter increase over the specified time range:
It may return fractional values over integer counters because of extrapolation. See this issue for details.
It may miss counter increase between raw sample just before the lookbehind window in square brackets and the first raw sample inside the lookbehind window. For example, increase(NumberOfVisitors[1m]) at timestamp t may miss the counter increase between the last raw sample just before the t-1m time and the first raw sample at (t-1m ... t] time range. See more details here and here.
It may miss the increase for the first raw sample in a time series. For example, if the NumberOfVisitors counter is increased to 10 just before the first scrape of this counter by Prometheus, then increase() over the time range with the first sample would under-count the counter increase by 10.
Prometheus developers are going to fix these issues - see this design doc. In the mean time it is possible to use VictoriaMetrics - its' increase() function is free from these issues.
Returning to the original question - the sum of multiple counters, which may be reset, can be returned with the following MetricsQL query in VictoriaMetrics:
running_sum(sum(increase(NumberOfVisitor)))
It uses the following functions:
increase() for calculating increase per each counter between adjacent points on the graph.
sum() for summing the calculated increases per each point on the graph.
running_sum() for calculating the running sum over per-point increases on the graph.
I'd like to get the 0.95 percentile memory usage of my pods from the last x time. However this query start to take too long if I use a 'big' (7 / 10d) range.
The query that i'm using right now is:
quantile_over_time(0.95, container_memory_usage_bytes[10d])
Takes around 100s to complete
I removed extra namespace filters for brevity
What steps could I take to make this query more performant ? (except making the machine bigger)
I thought about calculating the 0.95 percentile every x time (let's say 30min) and label it p95_memory_usage and in the query use p95_memory_usage instead of container_memory_usage_bytes, so that i can reduce the amount of points the query has to go through.
However, would this not distort the values ?
As you already observed, aggregating quantiles (over time or otherwise) doesn't really work.
You could try to build a histogram of memory usage over time using recording rules, looking like a "real" Prometheus histogram (consisting of _bucket, _count and _sum metrics) although doing it may be tedious. Something like:
- record: container_memory_usage_bytes_bucket
labels:
le: 100000.0
expr: |
container_memory_usage_bytes > bool 100000.0
+
(
container_memory_usage_bytes_bucket{le="100000.0"}
or ignoring(le)
container_memory_usage_bytes * 0
)
Repeat for all bucket sizes you're interested in, add _count and _sum metrics.
Histograms can be aggregated (over time or otherwise) without problems, so you can use a second set of recording rules that computes an increase of the histogram metrics, at much lower resolution (e.g. hourly or daily increase, at hourly or daily resolution). And finally, you can use histogram_quantile over your low resolution histogram (which has a lot fewer samples than the original time series) to compute your quantile.
It's a lot of work, though, and there will be a couple of downsides: you'll only get hourly/daily updates to your quantile and the accuracy may be lower, depending on how many histogram buckets you define.
Else (and this only came to me after writing all of the above) you could define a recording rule that runs at lower resolution (e.g. once an hour) and records the current value of container_memory_usage_bytes metrics. Then you could continue to use quantile_over_time over this lower resolution metric. You'll obviously lose precision (as you're throwing away a lot of samples) and your quantile will only update once an hour, but it's much simpler. And you only need to wait for 10 days to see if the result is close enough. (o:
The quantile_over_time(0.95, container_memory_usage_bytes[10d]) query can be slow because it needs to take into account all the raw samples for all the container_memory_usage_bytes time series on the last 10 days. The number of samples to process can be quite big. It can be estimated with the following query:
sum(count_over_time(container_memory_usage_bytes[10d]))
Note that if the quantile_over_time(...) query is used for building a graph in Grafana (aka range query instead of instant query), then the number of raw samples returned from the sum(count_over_time(...)) must be multiplied by the number of points on Grafana graph, since Prometheus executes the quantile_over_time(...) individually per each point on the displayed graph. Usually Grafana requests around 1000 points for building smooth graph. So the number returned from sum(count_over_time(...)) must be multiplied by 1000 in order to estimate the number of raw samples Prometheus needs to process for building the quantile_over_time(...) graph. See more details in this article.
There are the following solutions for reducing query duration:
To add more specific label filters in order to reduce the number of selected time series and, consequently, the number of raw samples to process.
To reduce the lookbehind window in square brackets. For example, changing [10d] to [1d] reduces the number of raw samples to process by 10x.
To use recording rules for calculating coarser-grained results.
To try using other Prometheus-compatible systems, which may process heavy queries at faster speed. Try, for example, VictoriaMetrics.
I have an % CPU usage grafana graph.
The problem is that the source data is collected by collectd as Jiffies.
I am using the following formula:
collectd|<ServerName>|cpu-*|cpu-idle|value|nonNegativeDerivative()|asPercent(-6000)|offset(100)
The problem is that when I increase the time range (to 30 days for example), the grafana is aggregating the data and since it is accumulative numbers (And not percentage or something it can make a simple average), the data in the graph is becoming invalid.
Any idea how to create a better formula?
Have you looked at the aggregation plugin (read type) to compute averages?
https://collectd.org/wiki/index.php/Plugin:Aggregation/Config
it is very strange that you have to use the nonNegativeDerivative function for a CPU metric. nonNegativeDerivative should only be used for ever increasing counters, not a gauge like metric like CPU