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

Multiple circuit breakers emit the same stat #9392

Closed
jmuia opened this issue Dec 18, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

Multiple circuit breakers emit the same stat #9392

jmuia opened this issue Dec 18, 2019 · 4 comments
Labels
duplicate stale stalebot believes this issue/PR has not been touched recently

Comments

@jmuia
Copy link
Contributor

jmuia commented Dec 18, 2019

Title: Multiple circuit breakers emit the same stat

Description:
It appears that for the HTTP/2 connection pool, the cluster.<name>.upstream_rq_pending_overflow stat is emitted when two different circuit breakers are hit: max_requests [0] and max_pending_requests [1].

This has the potential to be confusing, particularly if the the thresholds are configured to be different.

I believe this was introduced in #4917

[0] https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/blob/2fe5b8a/source/common/http/http2/conn_pool.cc#L92
[1] https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/blob/2fe5b8a/source/common/http/http2/conn_pool.cc#L132

@mattklein123
Copy link
Member

This is a duplicate of #9215 or very similar. I agree this is extremely confusing and something I would like to fix. cc @tonya11en. Can we potentially merge this into #9215 if that issue does not cover this also?

@jmuia
Copy link
Contributor Author

jmuia commented Jan 4, 2020

I think it's good to merge into #9215.

The only requirement here is that there needs to be a separate stat for requests overflow and for pending requests overflow. Since the HTTP/1 connection pool already has this, I suspect when the work in #9125 is done the HTTP/2 connection pool will also have it.

Thanks!

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Feb 3, 2020

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 30 days. It will be closed in the next 7 days unless it is tagged "help wanted" or other activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale stalebot believes this issue/PR has not been touched recently label Feb 3, 2020
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Feb 10, 2020

This issue has been automatically closed because it has not had activity in the last 37 days. If this issue is still valid, please ping a maintainer and ask them to label it as "help wanted". Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot closed this as completed Feb 10, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
duplicate stale stalebot believes this issue/PR has not been touched recently
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants