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
Currently, the Google Project associated with the Service Account used to send metrics to GMP is the one that is charged for ingestion. This creates an issue when using multiple instances of outputs.stackdriver to send metrics to different projects, as all ingestion costs are charged to the Service Account’s project instead of the respective destination projects.
Expected behavior
When using multiple outputs.stackdriver configurations in Telegraf, the quota costs for metric ingestion should be attributed to the specific project defined in each configuration instead of defaulting to the service account’s project.
Actual behavior
All ingestion is charged to the Google Service Account's project that is used to send the metrics, not the project where the metrics are actually being stored in.
Additional info
I have created a PR to address this issue here: #16583
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Use Case
Currently, the Google Project associated with the Service Account used to send metrics to GMP is the one that is charged for ingestion. This creates an issue when using multiple instances of
outputs.stackdriver
to send metrics to different projects, as all ingestion costs are charged to the Service Account’s project instead of the respective destination projects.Expected behavior
When using multiple
outputs.stackdriver
configurations in Telegraf, the quota costs for metric ingestion should be attributed to the specific project defined in each configuration instead of defaulting to the service account’s project.Actual behavior
All ingestion is charged to the Google Service Account's project that is used to send the metrics, not the project where the metrics are actually being stored in.
Additional info
I have created a PR to address this issue here:
#16583
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: