You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Describe the bug
When listing metrics from go-carbon with carbonserver (behind a carbonapi) the response is different based on which indexing method enabled.
Note the different value of the "id" element.
I find out that in graphite-web, it's by default the second response that I got.
I've tried to switch indexing mode to trie-index because of ram consumption problem (like #579). I will surely make an other issue about ram utilisation soon ( I'm currently running pprof analysis) or just add info in the previous issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @Thorsieger ,
We're using go-carbon together with carbonapi, but also using legacy UI (w/o database, just web part from https://github.com/lomik/graphite-web-ui) and for us it works fine. Do you experience any issues with different id value or it's just for nit-picking?
If second one - we can accept PR but I would not prefer not fix that otherwise.
that does not break my UI (grafana integration) only my node auto-discovery for my zabbix monitoring system. I'd used "id" as a discovery macro and can just change to "text".
I'm also not sure it has to be fix, but can be usefull to be noted here (someone may find this issue and saw the difference)
Describe the bug
When listing metrics from go-carbon with carbonserver (behind a carbonapi) the response is different based on which indexing method enabled.
Request :
https://{$GRAPHITE_URL}/metrics/find/?query=carbon.aggregator.*
Go-carbon Configuration:
first case :
second case :
Note the different value of the "id" element.
I find out that in graphite-web, it's by default the second response that I got.
I've tried to switch indexing mode to trie-index because of ram consumption problem (like #579). I will surely make an other issue about ram utilisation soon ( I'm currently running pprof analysis) or just add info in the previous issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: