Measure bytes before limits

[mapno]

What this PR does:

Adds a new metric that measures bytes received before limits

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes https://github.com/grafana/tempo-squad/issues/848

Checklist

• Tests updated
• Documentation added
• CHANGELOG.md updated - the order of entries should be [CHANGE], [FEATURE], [ENHANCEMENT], [BUGFIX]

[javiermolinar]

Being a bit picky, it seems we have a convention where the unit of measurement goes first:

metricBytesIngested

Although this seems incorrect, following Prometheus naming conventions. https://prometheus.io/docs/practices/naming/#metric-names

Instead of Ingress and received which may be confusing maybe we could use something like:

metricBytesRecievedRaw
distributor_bytes_received_raw_total

[electron0zero]

along with distributor_bytes_received_raw_total I want to throw in few more names into the mix:

• tempo_distributor_bytes_attempted_total since these are the bytes that are attempted (may or may not be ingested)
• distributor_bytes_received_unfiltered_total since we are capturing the bytes before ingestion limits are applied (i.e. filtering the data)

[mapno]

Being even nitpickier, ingress bytes can be considered the measurement unit in this metric. If we wanted a verb after the unit like in distributor_bytes_received_total it could be distributor_ingress_bytes_received_total or distributor_bytes_ingressed_total.

Ideally, we would rename distributor_bytes_received_total to ingested and use distributor_bytes_received_total for this new metric.

I don't have a strong opinion on this, I'm ok to go with whichever name sounds more clear for the team.

[electron0zero]

agree, I don't want to bikeshade on the name and okay with tempo_distributor_ingress_bytes_total as well.