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
In order to increase consistency of metrics available between vendors using Micrometer as their MP Metrics implementation we could have a required set of metrics. These would be the "base" scope metrics.
as an example of some of the metrics sets that we may want to require, see https://micrometer.io/docs/ref/jvm
new ClassLoaderMetrics().bindTo(registry); (1)
new JvmMemoryMetrics().bindTo(registry); (2)
new JvmGcMetrics().bindTo(registry); (3)
new ProcessorMetrics().bindTo(registry); (4)
new JvmThreadMetrics().bindTo(registry); (5)
note that in our group discussion from July 12, 2022 we hadn't fully decided whether this was a good idea. The "pro" side would be improved consistency, the "con" side would be tighter tie-in to Micrometer-specifics when using Micrometer.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In order to increase consistency of metrics available between vendors using Micrometer as their MP Metrics implementation we could have a required set of metrics. These would be the "base" scope metrics.
as an example of some of the metrics sets that we may want to require, see https://micrometer.io/docs/ref/jvm
new ClassLoaderMetrics().bindTo(registry); (1)
new JvmMemoryMetrics().bindTo(registry); (2)
new JvmGcMetrics().bindTo(registry); (3)
new ProcessorMetrics().bindTo(registry); (4)
new JvmThreadMetrics().bindTo(registry); (5)
note that in our group discussion from July 12, 2022 we hadn't fully decided whether this was a good idea. The "pro" side would be improved consistency, the "con" side would be tighter tie-in to Micrometer-specifics when using Micrometer.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: