-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 81
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
add dedicated counters for a few common 4xx and 5xx codes #845
Comments
We can certainly add more counters. We can limit the impact of this addition by hiding these changes behind a feature flag, so that we don't change the default behavior. We could run some larger load tests to determine the impact and feasibility of this which could help use decide whether we add 5 or 15. @eric846 is this something you are planning to work on? |
All sounds good. (I'm not planning to work on it myself.) |
I just realized a way to reduce the effort. We can just let the user specify a list of HTTP codes they want to break out as separate counters. Then we aren't even bound by the set of 15. The default would be an empty list, and I would probably start off with |
Can we afford to add 5 or 15 counters to help troubleshoot these specific HTTP outcomes? These would be in addition to today's catch-all
http_4xx
andhttp_5xx
counters.Usually if I saw 4xx or 5xx errors in Nighthawk counters, I would just use
curl
against the server directly to see what's happening, but when using a custom transport socket, that's impossible.If the resource cost is significant, we should prioritize the most common counters.
If we can afford 15:
If we can only afford 5:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: