Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[tailsamplingprocessor] Fix the decision timer metric to measure > 50ms #37722

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Logiraptor
Copy link

@Logiraptor Logiraptor commented Feb 5, 2025

Description

Previously the decision timer metric was in microseconds. Because the max histogram bucket was 50000, it capped the maximum measurable latency at 50ms. This commit changes the metric to be in milliseconds, which allows for measuring latencies of up to 50 seconds.

Since the default decision tick is 1s, it's necessary to observe when the latency is approaching 1s.

I'm not sure how big of a breaking change it is to update the unit, but given the previous value was not super useful, I thought it was better to change it.

Here's an example of the current state:
Screenshot 2025-02-05 at 3 23 21 PM

Notice how the average latency is running much higher than the p99, indicating that we are missing important data on how slow the decision tick actually is.

…er latencies beyond 50ms.

Previously the decision timer metric was in microseconds. Because the max histogram bucket was 50000,
it capped the maximum measurable latency at 50ms. This commit changes the metric to be in milliseconds, which
allows for measuring latencies of up to 50 seconds.

Since the default decision tick is 1s, it's necessary to observe when the latency is approaching 1s.

I'm not sure how big of a breaking change it is to update the unit, but given the previous value was not super useful,
I thought it was better to change it.
@Logiraptor Logiraptor requested review from jpkrohling and a team as code owners February 5, 2025 20:22
@github-actions github-actions bot added the processor/tailsampling Tail sampling processor label Feb 5, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot requested a review from portertech February 5, 2025 20:22
@crobert-1
Copy link
Member

I've added waiting-for-code-owners to signal that my review is pending their approval of this logical change. I don't know enough about this component to be able to confidently review at this time.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants