Could we perhaps group by the node then process_num then?
{nodename:value:
{pid: pid1: {
haproxy: {
Uptime_sec:100,
PoolFailed:1
}
stats: { "frontend": {
"www.haproxy.org": {
"bin": "999999999999",
"lbtot": "555555",
...
},
"www.haproxy.com": {
"bin": "999999999999",
"lbtot": "555555",
...
},
},
"backend": {
"www.haproxy.org": {
"bin": "999999999999",
"lbtot": "555555",
....
"server": {
"srv1": {
"bin": "999999999999",
"lbtot": "555555",
....
},
...
}
},
{pid: pid2: { haproxy: {
Uptime_sec:100,
PoolFailed:1
}
stats: { "frontend": {
"www.haproxy.org": {
"bin": "999999999999",
"lbtot": "555555",
...
},
"www.haproxy.com": {
"bin": "999999999999",
"lbtot": "555555",
...
},
},
"backend": {
"www.haproxy.org": {
"bin": "999999999999",
"lbtot": "555555",
....
"server": {
"srv1": {
"bin": "999999999999",
"lbtot": "555555",
....
},
...
}
},
ignore the close brackets im pretty sure they are wrong, but you get the idea.
On 26 July 2016 at 14:30, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote:
> Hi Pavlos!
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 03:23:01PM +0200, Pavlos Parissis wrote:
>> Here is a suggestion
>> {
>> "frontend": {
>> "www.haproxy.org": {
>> "bin": "999999999999",
>> "lbtot": "555555",
>> ...
>> },
>> "www.haproxy.com": {
>> "bin": "999999999999",
>> "lbtot": "555555",
>> ...
>> },
>> },
>> "backend": {
>> "www.haproxy.org": {
>> "bin": "999999999999",
>> "lbtot": "555555",
>> ....
>> "server": {
>> "srv1": {
>> "bin": "999999999999",
>> "lbtot": "555555",
>> ....
>> },
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> },
>> },
>> "haproxy": {
>> "id1": {
>> "PipesFree": "555",
>> "Process_num": "1",
>> ...
>> },
>> "id2": {
>> "PipesFree": "555",
>> "Process_num": "2",
>> ...
>> },
>> ...
>> },
>> }
>
> Thanks. How does it scale if we later want to aggregate these ones over
> multiple processes and/or nodes ? The typed output already emits a
> process number for each field. Also, we do have the information of how
> data need to be parsed and aggregated. I suspect that we want to produce
> this with the JSON output as well so that we don't lose information when
> dumping in JSON mode. I would not be surprized if people find JSON easier
> to process than our current format to aggregate their stats, provided we
> have all the fields :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Willy
