Feat/new prometheus metrics#586
Conversation
…lemetryConfig, CLI flags, and telemetry mod behind prometheus feature
…rometheus instrumentation
|
Hey @dvansari65, I'm a bit confused by this and seeing #552. Is this building off of #552? The idea was that 552 is laying down the groundwork, then subsequent PRs to complete #584 would just be building off that groundwork |
|
@MicaiahReid I accidentally closed #552 instead of updating it. i deleted simnet events for updating promethius and directly updating from svm file in this #586 |
MicaiahReid
force-pushed
the
main
branch
5 times, most recently
from
5419677 to
2129ad9
Compare
| } | ||
| Ok(_) => { | ||
| let _ = surfnet_svm.simnet_events_tx.send(SimnetEvent::info(format!( | ||
| "Metrics available at http://{}/metrics", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should display http://localhost:9000/metrics or http://127.0.0.1:9000/metrics, not http://0.0.0.0:9000/metrics
crates/core/src/rpc/accounts_data.rs
Outdated
|
|
||
| #[cfg(feature = "prometheus")] | ||
| crate::telemetry::metrics() | ||
| .record_rpc_request("getAccountInfo", rpc_start.elapsed().as_secs_f64() * 1000.0); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it possible to just do as_miliseconds to avoid the floating point math?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also is this fetch before get_account accidental/redundant? Do we just need one after?
crates/core/src/telemetry.rs
Outdated
| //! | ||
| //! Feature `prometheus` enables a `/metrics` HTTP endpoint | ||
|
|
||
| #[cfg(feature = "prometheus")] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rather than having #[cfg(feature = "prometheus")] a few times in this file, we should just have it once in the core/src/lib.rs file for the telemetry mod:
#[cfg(feature = "prometheus")]
pub mod telemtry;
crates/core/src/surfnet/locker.rs
Outdated
| let remote_account = client.get_account(pubkey, commitment_config).await?; | ||
| // Record how long mainnet fetch took | ||
| #[cfg(feature = "prometheus")] | ||
| crate::telemetry::metrics() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There might be other places we call client.get_account and client.get_multiple_accounts - should we instead put these in the remote.rs file in these actual fn definitions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes we can do , this is better
crates/core/src/surfnet/svm.rs
Outdated
|
|
||
| match self.inner.send_transaction(tx.clone()) { | ||
| Ok(res) => Ok(res), | ||
| Ok(res) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The send_transaction RPC method is already recording transactions. Those will already be routed through this endpoint, so this is going to lead to duplicate transaction tracking. We should be good to remove the metrics calls from this file.
2 participants
Closes #584
Metrics exposed:
surfpool_transactions_total{status}— transaction success/failure ratesurfpool_transaction_processing_ms— transaction processing latency histogramsurfpool_rpc_requests_total{method}— RPC request rate by methodsurfpool_rpc_latency_ms{method}— RPC request latency histogram by methodsurfpool_remote_fetch_latency_ms— mainnet account cloning latency histogram