We are not including:

• IndexCapacity from https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/reference/supported-metrics/microsoft-classicstorage-storageaccounts-blobservices-metrics
• FileShareQuota from https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/reference/supported-metrics/microsoft-classicstorage-storageaccounts-fileservices-metrics

Is this intentional?

Oh, please forget the comment about IndexCapacity, I could not find it but it's there. My Bad.

FileShareQuota is also there: https://github.com/ritalwar/integrations/blob/a02061f69bdab60414a479a6a6e60b66f1214042/packages/azure_metrics/data_stream/storage_account/fields/fields.yml#L69

Oh, this is surprising: how can FileShareQuota field from the docs become file_share_capacity_quota field in ES?

I think this is being taken from here or sdk.

Got it, thanks.

I see we have two documents for Azure Files:

• Supported metrics for Microsoft.ClassicStorage/storageAccounts/fileServices (from the links in the PR description)
• Azure Files monitoring data reference

Since the first one mentions the "Microsoft.ClassicStorage/storageAccounts" namespace, this may mean this for the classic version of the Files service, the the second for the current / modern version.

Are we supporting metrics for the classic namespace?

We should also check if we need add some *IOPS* related field in the current namespace doc, like:

• FileShareMaxUsedIOPS
• FileShareProvisionedIOPS
• FileShareMaxUsedBandwidthMiBps

WDYT?

Oops, my mistake! I referred to the classicStorage link instead of the correct one, which should be Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts as this is the namespace we are supporting. To address this, I will update the metric_type mapping using the object type instead of the group format like this

- name: azure.storage_account.*.*
  type: object
  object_type: float
  metric_type: gauge
  object_type_mapping_type: "*"
  description: >
    storage account

This will ensure that all the fields within this namespace are correctly accounted for.

I didn't use this format before due to some issues associated with it. However, it seems those issues have been resolved, as I tested it successfully.

Got it! Thanks for the check!

I'm not an expert in TSDB, but this makes sense.

I updated the link in the PR description with the non-classic one; please take a look to double-check if it's the correct one.

Thanks @zmoog!