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

Rename process.runtime.jvm.buffer.* metrics #3483

Closed
trask opened this issue May 8, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by open-telemetry/semantic-conventions#253
Closed

Rename process.runtime.jvm.buffer.* metrics #3483

trask opened this issue May 8, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by open-telemetry/semantic-conventions#253
Assignees
Labels
area:semantic-conventions Related to semantic conventions spec:metrics Related to the specification/metrics directory

Comments

@trask
Copy link
Member

trask commented May 8, 2023

Rename process.runtime.jvm.buffer.* metrics to process.runtime.jvm.buffers.* based on guidance from https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/blob/main/specification/metrics/semantic_conventions/README.md#pluralization (also similar to system.processes.*).

Also suggesting a couple other renames because buffer "usage" and "limit" don't seem super clear that they're about memory. And also these proposed names match the underlying MBean attributes.

So in total, proposing:

  • process.runtime.jvm.buffer.count --> process.runtime.jvm.buffers.count (maybe .active instead of .count, or maybe just dropping the .count, depending on outcome of other discussions)
  • process.runtime.jvm.buffer.usage --> process.runtime.jvm.buffers.memory_usage
  • process.runtime.jvm.buffer.limit --> process.runtime.jvm.buffers.total_capacity

Not adding this to JVM metric stability project since we are not planning to include these metrics in the initial stability.

@trask trask added area:semantic-conventions Related to semantic conventions spec:metrics Related to the specification/metrics directory labels May 8, 2023
@breedx-splk
Copy link
Contributor

I like this. Just one small nitpicky bikeshedding tweak around process.runtime.jvm.buffers.total_capacity.

I think the former limit carries with it some idea about maximum capacity, or upper achievable bounds. On the other hand, total seems to imply some summarized aggregation and can lose the fact that it's a boundary. With that, I'm proposing:

  • process.runtime.jvm.buffer.limit --> process.runtime.jvm.buffers.max_capacity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area:semantic-conventions Related to semantic conventions spec:metrics Related to the specification/metrics directory
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants