Description of problem: We collect average kb usage per second from the external metrics data base. When we insert data in the internal metrics data base we declare it to be percent and average datagrams per second. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: All metrics collected from Hawkular or Prometheus has this issue Steps to Reproduce: 1. collect containers metrics from Hawkular or Prometheus. Actual results: value * 100 (because we think it's percent) with datagram units. Expected results: actual value with kb units Additional info:
Please assess the impact of this issue and update the severity accordingly. Please refer to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_severity for a reminder on each severity's definition. If it's something like a tracker bug where it doesn't matter, please set it to Low/Low.
submitted upstream: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-kubernetes/pull/118
Edit: Talking to Adam Grare and Ladislav Smola, the bug is not *100 but *2 So: Actual results: value * 2 (because we think it's 0.5 of value) with datagram units.
I'm going to check if this bug effects MetricRollups table. Note: if this effects the rollup table (which means it effect on chargeback) we should raise the priority/severity.
merged upstream: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-kubernetes/pull/118
So after investigation of the issue it seems like we indeed have issue. Conclusions: 1. In openshift net consumption of rx=0.7; tx=0.55; (KiBps). (screenshot=s1.png) 2. In CFME net consumption (both r&t) is 3.818 KBps.(screenshot=s2.png) Note that metric rollups are also effected by this, i.e. net_usage_rate_average=3.81813151041667 It seems like we indeed have issue.
Created attachment 1333209 [details] Caps
IIUC what we report for net_usage_rate_average wrong (of a *2 factor). If so the BZ is high severity/priority. Yaacov is 5.8 affected as well? (To be on the safe side and not to risk to miss this I'll mark for 5.8)
> Yaacov is 5.8 affected as well? > (To be on the safe side and not to risk to miss this I'll mark for 5.8) YES, the offending code exist in 5.8 [1] [1] Entered in #5334 Nov 6, 2015 https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/5334/files