-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 812
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
bug in btrfs statistics with subvolume #1221
Comments
Thanks a lot for this detailed feedback. |
👍 |
Could you also send us the output of btrfs fi df please ? |
|
Thanks, the weird key "562949953421312" corresponds to your "unknown" line in your output above. Could you try this patched version of the check and let me know how it goes ? Just replace your /opt/datadog-agent/agent/checks.d/btrfs.py file by the one in the gist and restart the agent. Thanks! |
this is the data from the test-host. maybe i just don't understand properly how btrfs is handling the disk space, but it looks off. the other stats are collected via a script that uses the btrfs cli
this is the current fi show output
the node is running 93 subvolumes at the time being |
of interest to your current work, @technovangelist |
@phoet Can you contact us by email (support at datadoghq.com)? It would be easier to debug. The graphs with the system.disk.btrfs.* metrics is probably using the "avg" aggregator which will average accross everything, as metrics collected by the agent are tagged by replication_type and usage_type: |
@remh ah, that makes total sense! LGTM |
Closing the issue then, fix for "unknown" usage type is going out with 5.1.1 |
i was just testing 5.1.0-539 to gather some statistics on btrfs usage, but the client fails with an error:
my guess is that handling two mount points is somehow broken? the
get_usage
method is not trivial, so i this is my best guess...mount
shows two btrfs devices:disk_partitions
finds both mounts, but just returns the last one:same usage statistics for both, but the last one is off (handling of subvolume broken?)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: