Yeah makes sense Kevin,
Hmm just threw a little POC together to show some of the basics of the Openshift monitoring stack.
- Sample configuration for the User Workload monitoring stack which is in tech preview, eg data retention, and persistent storage claim size etc.
- small ruby app that has a /metrics endpoint, and 2 gauge metrics being exported
- Prometheus ServiceMonitor to monitor the service
- Prometheus PrometheusRule to fire based on those alerts
- WIP, but I'll add example Grafana GrafanaDashboards which graph the metrics at some future point
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 17:13, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 01:01:31AM +0100, David Kirwan wrote:
>
> Hmm the (prometheus, grafana, alertmanager) stack itself is pretty simple I
> would have said, but I agree it is certainly complex when
> installed/integrated on Openshift.. (most things are needlessly complex on
> Openshift tbh, and its an order of magnitude worse on Openshift 4 with
> these operators added to the mix).
Well, they may not be that complex... like I said, I haven't used them
much, so I might be missing how they work.
> It would be the obvious choice for me anyway considering this stack is
> available by default on a fresh Openshift install. We could make use of
> this cluster monitoring stack, especially if we're also deploying our
> services on Openshift. I might throw a POC/demo together to show how "easy"
> it is to get your app hooked into the Openshift cluster monitoring stack,
> or the UserWorkload tech preview monitoring stack[1].
I agree it makes sense to use this for openshift apps.
I am not sure at all we should use it for non openshift apps.
> If we did use this stack it would add a little extra pain with regards to
> monitoring storage maintenance/pruning. But maybe far less than
> running/maintaining a whole separate monitoring stack outside the Openshift
> cluster. There are also efficiencies to be made when developers are already
> in the Openshift/Kubernetes mindset, creating an extra Service and
> ServiceMonitor is a minor thing etc.
Sure, but we have a lot of legacy stuff we want to monitor/review logs
for too.
The right answer might be to just seperate those two use cases with
different solutions, but then we have 2 things to maintain.
It's probibly going to take some investigation and some proof of concept
working.
kevin
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
David Kirwan
Software Engineer
Community Platform Engineering @ Red Hat
T: +(353) 86-8624108 IM: @dkirwan
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
