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

Remove mapping for process.runtime.jvm.gc.duration #213

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 7, 2023

Conversation

liustanley
Copy link
Contributor

What does this PR do?

Removes runtime metric mapping for process.runtime.jvm.gc.duration -> jvm.gc.parnew.time.

Motivation

This mapping was causing problems due to the distribution overshadowing behavior in the backend. This is because process.runtime.jvm.gc.duration is an OTel histogram which gets converted to a DD distribution under the name of jvm.gc.parnew.time. This results in older jvm.gc.parnew.time values getting overridden because they're of type gauge.

@liustanley liustanley requested a review from a team as a code owner December 6, 2023 15:28
@liustanley liustanley requested a review from mackjmr December 6, 2023 15:28
newCountWithHost(newDims("jvm.gc.parnew.time.sum"), uint64(seconds(startTs+1)), 0, fallbackHostname),
newGaugeWithHost(newDims("jvm.gc.parnew.time.min"), uint64(seconds(startTs+1)), -100, fallbackHostname),
newGaugeWithHost(newDims("jvm.gc.parnew.time.max"), uint64(seconds(startTs+1)), 100, fallbackHostname),
newCountWithHost(newDims("process.runtime.jvm.threads.count.count"), uint64(seconds(startTs+1)), 100, fallbackHostname),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems like we are removing the mapping from process.runtime.jvm.gc.duration to jvm.gc.parnew.time, not sure how metric process.runtime.jvm.threads.count.count fit in to this change ?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Or are you just adding more test cases which are unrelated ? If this is the case then LGTM, just want to make sure I'm not missing something :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah just adding more test cases that are unrelated, this test was failing since we removed the mapping so I changed it to a different mapping name to keep the same test for histograms.

@liustanley liustanley requested a review from mackjmr December 6, 2023 18:05
@liustanley liustanley merged commit 5432be0 into main Dec 7, 2023
6 checks passed
@liustanley liustanley deleted the stanley.liu/remove-jvm-gc-duration branch December 7, 2023 19:30
mx-psi added a commit to open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib that referenced this pull request Dec 13, 2023
**Description:** <Describe what has changed.>
<!--Ex. Fixing a bug - Describe the bug and how this fixes the issue.
Ex. Adding a feature - Explain what this achieves.-->

Bump opentelemetry-mapping-go modules to v0.9.0. This includes:

- DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/218 and
DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/220
- DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/219
- DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/213
- DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/202
cparkins pushed a commit to AmadeusITGroup/opentelemetry-collector-contrib that referenced this pull request Jan 10, 2024
…9785)

**Description:** <Describe what has changed.>
<!--Ex. Fixing a bug - Describe the bug and how this fixes the issue.
Ex. Adding a feature - Explain what this achieves.-->

Bump opentelemetry-mapping-go modules to v0.9.0. This includes:

- DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/218 and
DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/220
- DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/219
- DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/213
- DataDog/opentelemetry-mapping-go/pull/202
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants