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

Feedback: 'Metrics' #4264

Closed
MichVanMooter opened this issue Feb 14, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

Feedback: 'Metrics' #4264

MichVanMooter opened this issue Feb 14, 2019 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@MichVanMooter
Copy link

Feedback for 'Metrics' https://docs.particular.net/monitoring/metrics/

Location in GitHub: https://github.com/Particular/docs.particular.net/blob/master/monitoring/metrics/index.md

Hi,
Could you add a paragraph on why metrics are not supported in 'sendonly' endpoint configurations? It would warn users and I'm also curious why this is? I'm assuming because the metrics captured are centered around the receiving end?

👍👍

@timbussmann
Copy link
Contributor

timbussmann commented Feb 15, 2019

Hey @michjuh thanks for the feedback 👍

tbh that's a very good question. I'm not sure how much sense it makes to enable metrics from an endpoint which can't really provide any of the metrics as they are all based on the incoming messages but I'm not sure why this feature throws at startup. @Particular/metrics-maintainers do you have any background info on this?

this information is definitely missing from the docs. Will add that.

@timbussmann
Copy link
Contributor

I've raised #4270 to make a note about send-only endpoints. Furthermore I've raised Particular/NServiceBus.Metrics.ServiceControl#60 in the plugin repository to further discuss the current behavior of throwing exceptions.

Is there a specific reason you want to use metrics on a send-only endpoint @michjuh ?

@MichVanMooter
Copy link
Author

Hello, we planned to enable metrics on all of our active endpoints just to be thorough and were surprised to see it throw on startup. So no there's no specific reason to have this, just curious. Thanks for the efforts :)

@timbussmann
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the explanation @michjuh 👍
The docs should now represent the behavior you've noticed better due to #4270. Please feel free to reopen this issue if you feel there is still something missing. Thanks again for the feedback, highly appreciated!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants