Improve rate limiter latency logging and add component-base metric#88134
Merged
k8s-ci-robot merged 1 commit intokubernetes:masterfrom Feb 27, 2020
Merged
Improve rate limiter latency logging and add component-base metric#88134k8s-ci-robot merged 1 commit intokubernetes:masterfrom
k8s-ci-robot merged 1 commit intokubernetes:masterfrom
Conversation
Author
|
/retest |
Author
|
/cc @logicalhan |
Contributor
|
/assign @logicalhan |
fbe4d1d to
4e78c71
Compare
Author
|
@logicalhan addressed comments |
logicalhan
approved these changes
Feb 25, 2020
logicalhan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
/lgtm
We should probably add a clock to the logger so that we can add some unit tests for this. Then we can probably verify that this thing is doing what we think it's doing.
Author
|
Ah there's something wrong with it now. |
I told you I didn't test it. |
4e78c71 to
71b534e
Compare
Author
|
I'll add a unit test :) |
If you add a clock to the logger, it'll make testing much easier. |
71b534e to
6bb8ea9
Compare
6bb8ea9 to
be4e51e
Compare
be4e51e to
2bcf99f
Compare
|
/retest |
logicalhan
reviewed
Feb 26, 2020
| if time.Since(b.lastLogTime) > b.minLogInterval { | ||
| klog.V(level).Info(message) | ||
| b.lastLogTime = time.Now() | ||
| func (b *throttledLogger) attemptToLog() (klog.Level, bool) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should add a docstring on the return values. My first super quick skim, I was super confused by the -1 (it makes sense once I read the code though).
Contributor
|
/approve |
Contributor
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: jennybuckley, lavalamp The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/retest Review the full test history for this PR. Silence the bot with an |
1 similar comment
|
/retest Review the full test history for this PR. Silence the bot with an |
IonutBajescu
added a commit
to IonutBajescu/kubernetes
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 24, 2021
We've found that the rate limiting metric wasn't exporting any metrics, in spite of clearly seeing the metric in the disassembled binary. As it turns out, the rest_client_rate_limiter_duration_seconds metric has been added as part of the logging improvements, but it appears to have been accidentally forgotten to be registered. kubernetes#88134
k8s-publishing-bot
pushed a commit
to kubernetes/component-base
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 9, 2021
We've found that the rate limiting metric wasn't exporting any metrics, in spite of clearly seeing the metric in the disassembled binary. As it turns out, the rest_client_rate_limiter_duration_seconds metric has been added as part of the logging improvements, but it appears to have been accidentally forgotten to be registered. kubernetes/kubernetes#88134 Kubernetes-commit: da9ffb8458d49b2f5710e1acd640b436d7163b3e
This was referenced Apr 30, 2021
chenchun
pushed a commit
to chenchun/kubernetes
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 20, 2024
We've found that the rate limiting metric wasn't exporting any metrics, in spite of clearly seeing the metric in the disassembled binary. As it turns out, the rest_client_rate_limiter_duration_seconds metric has been added as part of the logging improvements, but it appears to have been accidentally forgotten to be registered. kubernetes#88134
chenchun
pushed a commit
to chenchun/kubernetes
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 20, 2024
…!893) Fix rest_client_rate_limiter_duration_seconds not registered Fix rest_client_rate_limiter_duration_seconds not registered We've found that the rate limiting metric wasn't exporting any metrics, in spite of clearly seeing the metric in the disassembled binary. As it turns out, the rest_client_rate_limiter_duration_seconds metric has been added as part of the logging improvements, but it appears to have been accidentally forgotten to be registered. kubernetes#88134
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What type of PR is this?
/sig api-machinery
/priority important-soon
/kind feature
/cc @lavalamp
What this PR does / why we need it:
Follow up to #87740
Adds a more severe and infrequent log message as suggested in #87740 (comment)
Also adds a new client-go metric to track the rate limiter latency across all invocations.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: