Writing exporters

When directly instrumenting your own code, the general rules of how to instrument code with a Prometheus client library can be followed quite directly. When taking metrics from another monitoring or instrumentation system, things tend not to be so black and white.

This document contains things you should consider when writing an exporter or custom collector. The theory covered will also be of interest to those doing direct instrumentation.

If you are writing an exporter and are unclear on anything here, contact us on IRC (#prometheus on Freenode) or the mailing list.

Maintainability and purity

The main decision you need to make when writing an exporter is how much work you’re willing to put in to get perfect metrics out of it.

If the system in question has only a handful of metrics that rarely change, then getting everything perfect is an easy choice (e.g. the haproxy exporter).

If on the other hand the system has hundreds of metrics that change continuously with new versions, if you try to get things perfect then you’ve signed yourself up for a lot of ongoing work. The mysql exporter is on this end of the spectrum.

The node exporter is a mix, varying by module. For mdadm we have to hand-parse a file and come up with our own metrics, so we may as well get the metrics right while we’re at it. For meminfo on the other hand, the results vary across kernel versions so we end up doing just enough of a transform to create valid metrics.


When working with applications, you should aim for an exporter that requires no custom configuration by the user beyond telling it where the application is. You may also need to offer the ability to filter out certain metrics if they may be too granular and expensive on large setups (e.g. the haproxy exporter allows filtering of per-server stats). Similarly there may be expensive metrics that are disabled by default.

When working with monitoring systems, frameworks and protocols things are not so simple.

In the best case the system in question has a similar enough data model to Prometheus that you can automatically determine how to transform metrics. This is the case for Cloudwatch, SNMP and Collectd. At most we need the ability to let the user select which metrics they want to pull out.

In the more common case metrics from the system are completely non-standard, depending on how the user is using it and what the underlying application is. In that case the user has to tell us how to transform the metrics. The JMX exporter is the worst offender here, with the graphite and statsd exporters also requiring configuration to extract labels.

Providing something that produces some output out of the box and a selection of example configurations is advised. When writing configurations for such exporters, this document should be kept in mind.

YAML is the standard Prometheus configuration format.



Follow the best practices on metric naming.

Generally metric names should allow someone who’s familiar with Prometheus but not a particular system to make a good guess as to what a metric means. A metric named http_requests_total is not extremely useful - are these being measured as they come in, in some filter or when they get to the user’s code? And requests_total is even worse, what type of requests?

To put it another way with direct instrumentation, a given metric should exist within exactly one file. Accordingly within exporters and collectors, a metric should apply to exactly one subsystem and be named accordingly.

Metric names should never be procedurally generated, except when writing a custom collector or exporter.

Metric names for applications should generally be prefixed by the exporter name, e.g. haproxy_up.

Metrics must use base units (e.g. seconds, bytes) and leave converting them to something more readable to the graphing software. No matter what units you end up using, the units in the metric name must match the units in use. Similarly expose ratios, not percentages (though a counter for each of the two components of the ratio is better).

Metric names should not include the labels that they’re exported with (e.g. by_type) as that won’t make sense if the label is aggregated away.

The one exception is when you’re exporting the same data with different labels via multiple metrics, in which case that’s usually the sanest way to distinguish them. For direct instrumentation this should only come up when exporting a single metric with all the labels would have too high a cardinality.

Prometheus metrics and label names are written in snake_case. Converting camelCase to snake_case is desirable, though doing so automatically doesn’t always produce nice results for things like myTCPExample or isNaN so sometimes it’s best to leave them as-is.

Exposed metrics should not contain colons, these are for users to use when aggregating.

Only [a-zA-Z0-9:_] are valid in metric names, any other characters should be sanitized to an underscore.

The _sum, _count, _bucket and _total suffixes are used by Summaries, Histograms and Counters. Unless you’re producing one of those, avoid these suffixes.

_total is a convention for counters, you should use it if you’re using the COUNTER type.

The process_ and scrape_ prefixes are reserved. It’s okay to add your own prefix on to these if they follow the matching semantics. E.g. Prometheus has scrape_duration_seconds for how long a scrape took, it’s good practice to have e.g. jmx_scrape_duration_seconds saying how long the JMX collector took to do its thing. For process stats where you have access to the pid, both Go and Python offer collectors that’ll handle this for you (see the haproxy exporter for an example).

When you have a successful request count and a failed request count, the best way to expose this is as one metric for total requests and another metric for failed requests. This makes it easy to calculate the failure ratio. Do not use one metric with a failed/success label. Similarly with hit/miss for caches, it’s better to have one metric for total and another for hits.

Consider the likelihood that someone using monitoring will do a code or web search for the metric name. If the names are very well established and unlikely to be used outside of the realm of people used to those names (e.g. SNMP and network engineers) then leaving them as-is may be a good idea. This logic doesn’t apply for e.g. MySQL as non-DBAs can be expected to be poking around the metrics. A HELP string with the original name can provide most of the same benefits as using the original names.


Read the general advice on labels.

Avoid type as a label name, it’s too generic and meaningless. You should also try where possible to avoid names that are likely to clash with target labels, such as region, zone, cluster, availability_zone, az, datacenter, dc, owner, customer, stage, environment and env - though if that’s what the application calls something it’s best not to cause confusion by renaming it.

Avoid the temptation to put things into one metric just because they share a prefix. Unless you’re sure something makes sense as one metric, multiple metrics is safer.

The label le has special meaning for Histograms, and quantile for Summaries. Avoid these labels generally.

Read/write and send/receive are best as separate metrics, rather than as a label. This is usually because you care about only one of them at a time, and it’s easier to use them that way.

The rule of thumb is that one metric should make sense when summed or averaged. There is one other case that comes up with exporters, and that’s where the data is fundamentally tabular and doing otherwise would require users to do regexes on metric names to be usable. Consider the voltage sensors on your motherboard, while doing math across them is meaningless, it makes sense to have them in one metric rather than having one metric per sensor. All values within a metrics should (almost) always have the same unit (consider if fan speeds were mixed in with the voltages, and you had no way to automatically separate them).

Don’t do this:

my_metric{label=a} 1
my_metric{label=b} 6
my_metric{label=total} 7

or this:

my_metric{label=a} 1
my_metric{label=b} 6
my_metric{} 7

The former breaks people who do a sum() over your metric, and the latter breaks sum and also is quite difficult to work with. Some client libraries (e.g. Go) will actively try to stop you doing the latter in a custom collector, and all client libraries should stop you from doing the former with direct instrumentation. Never do either of these, rely on Prometheus aggregation instead.

If your monitoring exposes a total like this, drop the total. If you have to keep it around for some reason (e.g. the total includes things not counted individually), use different metric names.

Target labels, not static scraped labels

If you ever find yourself wanting to apply the same label to all of your metrics, stop.

There’s generally two cases where this comes up.

The first is some label it’d be useful to have on the metrics that are about, such as the version number of the software. Use the approach described at https://www.robustperception.io/how-to-have-labels-for-machine-roles/ instead.

The other case are what are really target labels. These are things like region, cluster names, and so on, that come from your infrastructure setup rather than the application itself. It’s not for an application to say where it fits in your label taxonomy, that’s for the person running the Prometheus server to configure and different people monitoring the same application may give it different names.

Accordingly these labels belong up in the scrape configs of Prometheus via whatever service discovery you’re using. It’s okay to apply the concept of machine roles here as well, as it’s likely useful information for at least some of the people scraping it.


You should try to match up the types of your metrics to Prometheus types. This usually means counters and gauges. The _count and _sum of summaries are also relatively common, and on occasion you’ll see quantiles. Histograms are rare, if you come across one remember that the exposition format exposes cumulative values.

Often it won’t be obvious what the type of a metric is (especially if you’re automatically processing a set of metrics), use UNTYPED in that case. In general UNTYPED is a safe default.

Counters can’t go down, so if you’ve a counter type coming from another instrumentation system that has a way to decrement it (e.g. Dropwizard metrics) that’s not a counter - it’s a gauge. UNTYPED is probably the best type to use there, as GAUGE would be misleading if it were being used as a counter.

Help strings

When you’re transforming metrics it’s useful for users to be able to track back to what the original was, and what rules were in play that caused that transform. Putting in the name of the collector/exporter, the id of any rule that was applied and the name/details of the original metric into the help string will greatly aid users.

Prometheus doesn’t like one metric having different help strings. If you’re making one metric from many others, choose one of them to put in the help string.

For examples of this, the SNMP exporter uses the OID and the JMX exporter puts in a sample mBean name. The haproxy exporter has hand-written strings. The node exporter has a wide variety of examples.

Drop less useful statistics

Some instrumentation systems expose 1m/5m/15m rates, average rates since application start (called mean in dropwizard metrics for example), minimums, maximums and standard deviations.

These should all be dropped, as they’re not very useful and add clutter. Prometheus can calculate rates itself, and usually more accurately (these are usually exponentially decaying averages). You don’t know what time the min/max were calculated over, and the stddev is statistically useless (expose sum of squares, _sum and _count if you ever need to calculate it).

Quantiles have related issues, you may choose to drop them or put them in a Summary.

Dotted strings

Many monitoring systems don’t have labels, instead doing things like my.class.path.mymetric.labelvalue1.labelvalue2.labelvalue3.

The graphite and statsd exporters share a way of doing this with a small configuration language. Other exporters should implement the same. It’s currently implemented only in Go, and would benefit from being factored out into a separate library.


When implementing the collector for your exporter, you should never use the usual direct instrumentation approach and then update the metrics on each scrape.

Rather create new metrics each time. In Go this is done with MustNewConstMetric in your Update() method. For Python see https://github.com/prometheus/client_python#custom-collectors and for Java generate a List<MetricFamilySamples> in your collect method - see StandardExports.java for an example.

The reason for this is firstly that two scrapes could happen at the same time, and direct instrumentation uses what are effectively (file-level) global variables so you’ll get race conditions. The second reason is that if a label value disappears, it’ll still be exported.

Instrumenting your exporter itself via direct instrumentation is fine, e.g. total bytes transferred or calls performed by the exporter across all scrapes. For exporters such as the blackbox exporter and snmp exporter which aren’t tied to a single target, these should only be exposed on a vanilla /metrics call - not on a scrape of a particular target.

Metrics about the scrape itself

Sometimes you’d like to export metrics that are about the scrape, like how long it took or how many records you processed.

These should be exposed as gauges (as they’re about an event, the scrape) and the metric name prefixed by the exporter name e.g. jmx_scrape_duration_seconds. Usually the _exporter is excluded (and if the exporter also makes sense to use as just a collector, definitely exclude it).

Machine and process metrics

Many systems (e.g. elasticsearch) expose machine metrics such a CPU, memory and filesystem information. As the node exporter provides these in the Prometheus ecosystem, such metrics should be dropped.

In the Java world, many instrumentation frameworks expose process-level and JVM-level stats such as CPU and GC. The Java client and JMX exporter already include these in the preferred form via DefaultExports.java, so these should be dropped.

Similarly with other languages.


Each exporter should monitor exactly one instance application, preferably sitting right beside it on the same machine. That means for every haproxy you run, you run a haproxy_exporter process. For every machine with a mesos slave, you run the mesos exporter on it (and another one for the master if a machine has both).

The theory behind this is that for direct instrumentation this is what you’d be doing, and we’re trying to get as close to that as we can in other layouts. This means that all service discovery is done in Prometheus, not in exporters. This also has the benefit that Prometheus has the target information it needs to allow users probe your service with the blackbox exporter.

There are two exceptions:

The first is where running beside the application your monitoring is completely nonsensical. SNMP, blackbox and IPMI are the main examples of this. IPMI and SNMP as the devices are effectively black boxes that it’s impossible to run code on (though if you could run a node exporter on them instead that’d be better), and blackbox as if you’re monitoring something like a DNS name there’s nothing to run on. In this case Prometheus should still do service discovery, and pass on the target to be scraped. See the blackbox and SNMP exporters for examples.

Note that it is only currently possible to write this type of exporter with the Python and Java client libraries (the blackbox exporter which is written in Go is doing the text format by hand, don’t do this).

The other is where you’re pulling some stats out of a random instance of a system and don’t care which one you’re talking to. Consider a set of MySQL slaves you wanted to run some business queries against the data to then export. Having an exporter that uses your usual load balancing approach to talk to one slave is the sanest approach.

This doesn’t apply when you’re monitoring a system with master-election, in that case you should monitor each instance individually and deal with the masterness in Prometheus. This is as there isn’t always exactly one master, and changing what a target is underneath Prometheus’s feet will cause oddities.


Metrics should only be pulled from the application when Prometheus scrapes them, exporters should not perform scrapes based on their own timers. That is, all scrapes should be synchronous.

Accordingly you should not set timestamps on the metric you expose, let Prometheus take care of that. If you think you need timestamps, then you probably need the pushgateway (without timestamps) instead.

If a metric is particularly expensive to retrieve (i.e. takes more than a minute), it is acceptable to cache it. This should be noted in the HELP string.

The default scrape timeout for Prometheus is 10 seconds. If your exporter can be expected to exceed this, you should explicitly call this out in your user docs.


Some applications and monitoring systems only push metrics e.g. statsd, graphite and collectd.

There’s two considerations here.

Firstly, when do you expire metrics? Collected and things talking to Graphite both export regularly, and when they stop we want to stop exposing the metrics. Collected includes an expiry time so we use that, Graphite doesn’t so it’s a flag on the exporter.

Statsd is a bit different, as it’s dealing with events rather than metrics. The best model is to run one exporter beside each application and restart them when the application restarts so that state is cleared.

The second is that these sort of systems tend to allow your users to send either deltas or raw counters. You should rely on the raw counters as far as possible, as that’s the general Prometheus model.

For service-level metrics (e.g. service-level batch jobs) you should have your exporter push into the push gateway and exit after the event rather than handling the state yourself. For instance-level batch metrics, there is no clear pattern yet - options are either to abuse the node exporter’s textfile collector, rely on in-memory state (probably best if you don’t need to persist over a reboot) or implement similar functionality to the textfile collector.

Failed scrapes

There are currently two patterns for failed scrapes where the application you’re talking to doesn’t respond or has other problems.

The first is to return a 5xx error.

The seconds is to have an myexporter_up (e.g. haproxy_up) variable that’s 0/1 depending on whether the scrape worked.

The latter is better where there’s still some useful metrics you can get even with a failed scrape, such as the haproxy exporter providing process stats. The former is a tad easier for users to deal with, as up works in the usual way (though you can’t distinguish between the exporter being down and the application being down).

Landing page

It’s nicer for users if visiting http://yourexporter/ has a simple html page with the name of the exporter, and a link to the /metrics.

Port numbers

A user may have many exporters and Prometheus components on the same machine, so to make that easier each has a unique port number.

https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/wiki/Default-port-allocations is where we track them, this is publicly editable.

Feel free to grab the next free port number when developing your exporter, preferably before publicly announcing it. If you’re not ready to release yet, putting your username and WIP is fine.

This is a registry to make our users’ lives a little easier, not a commitment to develop particular exporters.


Once you’re ready to announce your exporter to the world, send an email to the mailing list and send a PR to add it to the list of available exporters.