Assigned
Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
pe...@appspace.com
I have forwarded this request to the engineering team. We will update this issue with any progress updates and a resolution.
se...@google.com
Hello! Sorry to bring up this issue after almost a year but I wanted to add that we have chosen metric identifier as agent.googleapis.com/memory/percent_used but autoscaling didnt work out for us either. It would be appraciated if you can guide us.
gr...@vaira.app
Hi, at the moment we are using the cpu_utilization/target_utilization attribute (in app.yaml) for autoscaling in the app engine flexible environment, however it would be great if we can have the way to mention the memory_utilization metrics as well to decide on the auto scaling. It will give us more control of the auto scaling the instances than now.
mi...@kudosity.com
Hi, I do not see any memory metrics in neither console nor stackdriver. Is this connected to this issue?
al...@gmail.com
Hello Google team, I was directed to this issue by the support team when we raised concerns around the non availability of memory metrics for Auto Scaling. Is this feature 'released' or in roadmap or not considered ? Please provide some details around this
da...@kencko.com
Hi ,
Can somebody tell the exact metric for memory based autoscaling
Can somebody tell the exact metric for memory based autoscaling
ga...@emarsys.com
This would be very helpful for us as well. Without this, Cloud Traces good for a little play only but not for real production operational use-cases.
ka...@google.com
ka...@google.com
ea...@gmail.com
graph is squashed. just want a listof traces that take > 1 sec < 10 sec , start with a certain route.
don't really want a graph even, just a list of traces
be cool to group by a field and show counts too...
don't really want a graph even, just a list of traces
be cool to group by a field and show counts too...
Description
The Cloud Trace Filters syntax is quite limiting.
1. The Cloud Trace documentation claims "You use filters to hide, or to find, individual traces." See [Finding and viewing traces] (
In fact [Cloud Trace filters] (
2. The latency filter allows to only choose traces with latency that is "greater or equal" but not "less" than the [DURATION]. Latency ranges are not supported either.
3. There is no regex support.
4. Filters are joined with logical AND: "In the current UI, Trace filters consist of a sequence of comparisons called terms. Traces must match all the terms in the filter to be selected." See [Filter syntax] (
Supposedly these limitations are because of:
- the Trace filter syntax [OPTION] : [VALUE] , that is rather a mapping instead of a comparison;
- the way filter matches are processed: they are always joined with the logical AND.
What you would like to accomplish:
Please re-work the syntax of the Cloud Trace Filters so that:
+ Replace the mapping operator ":" in the filter syntax with the more convenient comparison operators like <, >, <=, >=, !=, == ;
+ Add an opportunity to build complex nested filters with logical AND, OR, NOT, and allow grouping with brackets;
+ Regex support for VALUEs would be very appreciated.