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

Docs: Revise hedging configuration block descriptions #5069

Merged

Conversation

KMiller-Grafana
Copy link
Contributor

PR #4826 was merged in without a documentation review.

This PR revises the descriptions of hedging configuration block knobs. It attempts to use the same formatting and description style as found in other blocks' descriptions within the documentation. It also changes the block name to just be "hedging" following the style implemented in PRs #5015 and #4787.

Copy link
Contributor

@cstyan cstyan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me.

@@ -851,28 +851,31 @@ The `swift_storage_config` configures Swift as a general storage for different d
[container_name: <string> | default = "cortex"]
```

## hedging_config
## hedging
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should standardise on whether we include the _config suffix; it's a bit inconsistent right now. For example, the few lines above this:

  # Configures backend rule storage for Azure.
  [azure: <azure_storage_config>]
  # Configures backend rule storage for GCS.
  [gcs: <gcs_storage_config>]
  # Configures backend rule storage for S3.
  [s3: <s3_storage_config>]
  # Configures backend rule storage for Swift.
  [swift: <swift_storage_config>]

I agree with your approach, but perhaps we can correct this in a subsequent PR?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Definitely, @dannykopping . I was attempting to only address hedging-related configuration in this PR.

Comment on lines 860 to 861
Calculate your latency to be when 99 percent of object storage requests have
seen responses.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm wondering if we should provide an example query here.

histogram_quantile(0.99, 
  sum(rate(cortex_gcs_request_duration_seconds_bucket[5m])
) by (le))

I think we should stick with referring to percentiles here as this is a commonly-used term when discussing latencies.

Suggested change
Calculate your latency to be when 99 percent of object storage requests have
seen responses.
Calculate your latency to be the 99th percentile of object storage response times.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've revised the description of the percentile. Let's push off the task of adding an example for later, as I'm unclear on the future and use of the Cortex metric.

@cyriltovena
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you @KMiller-Grafana

Copy link
Contributor

@dannykopping dannykopping left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

@dannykopping dannykopping left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@dannykopping dannykopping merged commit 625d19c into grafana:main Jan 7, 2022
@KMiller-Grafana KMiller-Grafana deleted the docs/revise-hedging-config branch January 7, 2022 20:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants