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

distinguish consensus/non consensus in certificate execution latency #11749

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 5, 2023

Conversation

longbowlu
Copy link
Collaborator

Description

as title, and add more points in the buckets.

Test Plan

CI


If your changes are not user-facing and not a breaking change, you can skip the following section. Otherwise, please indicate what changed, and then add to the Release Notes section as highlighted during the release process.

Type of Change (Check all that apply)

  • user-visible impact
  • breaking change for a client SDKs
  • breaking change for FNs (FN binary must upgrade)
  • breaking change for validators or node operators (must upgrade binaries)
  • breaking change for on-chain data layout
  • necessitate either a data wipe or data migration

Release notes

@longbowlu longbowlu requested review from patrickkuo and mwtian May 4, 2023 22:59
@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented May 4, 2023

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

4 Ignored Deployments
Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
explorer ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) May 5, 2023 5:50pm
explorer-storybook ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) May 5, 2023 5:50pm
sui-wallet-kit ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) May 5, 2023 5:50pm
wallet-adapter ⬜️ Ignored (Inspect) May 5, 2023 5:50pm

@longbowlu longbowlu requested a review from dmitri-perelman May 4, 2023 23:00
@@ -189,7 +189,8 @@ pub struct AuthorityMetrics {
batch_size: Histogram,

handle_transaction_latency: Histogram,
execute_certificate_latency: Histogram,
execute_certificate_consensus_latency: Histogram,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just use a label to differentiate between the two?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can do that if you prefer that, just curious any particular reason it is better?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just in case we need to add more labels for the metric. Also there is currently handle_transaction_latency so it seems nice to maintain execute_certificate_latency.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

not sure what you mean by handle_transaction_latency but I will update to use labels

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wanted to use two metrics because today we have handle_certificate_non_consensus_latency
and handle_certificate_consensus_latency which are two metrics. But it's not a big deal and I don't have preferences

Copy link
Contributor

@mwtian mwtian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sounds good, either way is fine.

@longbowlu longbowlu force-pushed the add-tx-digest-to-process-object-index-warning branch from c68d58e to f89ecd3 Compare May 5, 2023 17:49
@longbowlu longbowlu enabled auto-merge (squash) May 5, 2023 18:03
@longbowlu longbowlu merged commit 25bccaf into main May 5, 2023
@longbowlu longbowlu deleted the add-tx-digest-to-process-object-index-warning branch May 5, 2023 18:16
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants