On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Jan Fajerski wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:01:01PM +0000, Sage Weil wrote: > >Adding dev list. We haven't talked through much of this in any detail in > >the orchestrator calls yet aside from a vague discussion about what > >should/shouldn't be in scope. > Even if its an unpopular opinion: I think monitoring is absolutely out of scope > for the orchestrator. Ceph works just fine without prometheus/grafana in place. > Since I seem to be in the minority camp with this, I'd argue for at least making > this optional and integrating well with existing (further down called DIY case, > though some might call what the orchestrator does DIY ;) monitoring deployments. Working with existing DIY metrics infra is the only non-negotiable requirement here. My goal is simply to have something that is simple and painless (and not necessarily even HA) just to make all the other dashboard graphs light up. > >On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Paul Cuzner wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 2:37 AM Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Paul Cuzner wrote: > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > I've got a working gist for the add/remove of the monitoring solution. > >> > > https://gist.github.com/pcuzner/ac542ce3fa9a4699bb9310b1fd5095d0 > >> > > > >> > > I'm out for the next couple of days, but will get a PR raised next week > >> > to > >> > > get this started properly. > >> > > >> > For some reason it won't let me comment on that gist. > >> > > >> > - I don't think we should install anything on the host outside of the unit > >> > file and /var/lib/ceph/$fsid/$thing. I suggest $thing be 'prometheus', > >> > 'alertmanager', 'node-exporter', 'grafana'. We could combine all but > >> > node-exporter into a single 'monitoring' thing but i'm worried this > >> > obscures things too much when, for example, the user might have an > >> > external prometheus but still need alertmanager, and so on. > >> > > >> > So all the configs should live in > >> > /var/lib/ceph/$fsid/$thing/prometheus.yml and so on, and then bound to the > >> > right /etc/whatever location by the container config. > >> > > >> > >> I struggle with this one. Channelling my inner sysadmin: "I expect config > >> settings to be in /etc and data to be in /var/lib - that's what FHS says > >> and that's how other systems look that I have to manage, so why does Ceph > >> have to do things differently?" > > > >1- Because it's a containerized service. Things are in etc inside the > >container, not outside. Sprinkling these configs in /etc mixes > >containerized service configs with the *host*'s configs, which seems very > >untidy to me. > >2. Putting it all in /var/lib/ceph/whatever means it's find and > >clean up. > > > >> I'm also not sure of the value of fsid in the dir names. I can see the > >> value if a host has to support multiple ceph clusters - but outside dev is > >> that something that the community or our customers actually want? > > > >Most deployments won't need it, but it will avoid a whole range of > >problems when they do. Especially when it becomes trivial to bootstrap > >clusters, you also make it trivial to make multiple clusters overlap on > >the same host. > > > >And, like above, it keeps things tidy. > > > >> The gist downloads the separate containers we need in parallel - which I > >> think is a good thing! reduces time > > > >Sure... that's something we could do regardless of whether it's a separate > >script of part of ceph-daemon. Probably what we actually want is for the > >ssh 'host add' commadn to kick off some prestaging of containers in the > >background so that the first daemon deployment doesn't wait for a > >container download at all. > > > >> IMO, having monitoring-add deploy grafana/prom and alert manager together > >> by default is the way to go. TBH, when I started this, I was putting them > >> all in the same pod under podman for management and treat them as a single > >> unit - but having to support 'legacy' docker put an end to that :) > >> > >> If a user wishes to use a separate prometheus, that will normally have it's > >> own alertmanager too. Which alertmanager a prometheus server is defined in > >> the prometheus.yml. With external prometheus, rules, alerts and receiver > >> definitions are going to be an exercise for the reader. We'll need to > >> document the settings, but the admin will need to apply them - in this > >> scenario, we could possibly generate sample files that the admin can pick > >> up and apply? To my mind deployment of monitoring has two pathways; > >> default - "monitoring add" yields prom/grafana/alertmanager containers > >> deployed to machine > >> external-prom - "monitoring add" just deploys grafana, and points it's > >> default data source at the external prom url. We're also making an > >> assumption here that the prometheus server is open and doesn't require auth > >> (OCP's prometheus for example has auth enabled) > > > >I think it makes sense to focus on the out-of-the-box opinionated easy > >scenario vs the DIY case, in general at least. But I have a few > >questions... > I think this focus will leave some users in the dust. Monitoring with prometheus > can get complex, especially if it is to be fault tolerant (which imho is > important for confidence in such a system). Also typically users don't want > several monitoring systems in their environment. So let's keep the case of > existing prometheus systems in mind please. That's what I want meant by 'vs' above... perhaps I should have said 'or'. Either we deploy something simple and opinionated, or the user attaches to their existing or self-configured setup. We don't probably need to worry about the various points in the middle ground where we manage only part of the metrics solution. (Also, I'm trying to use 'metrics' to mean prometheus etc, vs 'monitoring' which in my mind is nagios or pagerduty or whatever and presumably has a level of HA required, and/or needs to be external instead of baked-in.) sage > > > >- In the DIY case, does it makes sense to leave the node-exporter to the > >reader too? Or might it make sense for us to help deploy the > >node-exporter, but they run the external/existing prometheus instance? > > > >- Likewise, the alertmanager is going to have a bunch of ceph-specific > >alerts configured, right? Might they want their own prom but we deploy > >our alerts? (Is there any dependency in the dashboard on a particular set > >of alerts in prometheus?) > > > >I'm guessing you think no in both these cases... > > What I'm missing from proposals I've seen so far is an interface to query the > orchestrator for various prometheus bits. First and foremost the orchestrator > should have a command that returns a prometheus file_sd_config of exporters that > an external prometheus stack should scrape. Whether this is just the mgr > exporter or also node_exporters (or others) depends on how far the orchestrator > will take control. > Alerts are currently handled as an rpm but could certainly be provided through a > similar interface. > > At the very least, if the consensus will be that the orchestrator absolutely has > to deploy everything itself, please at least provide an interface so that a > federated setup is easily possible (an external prometheus scraping the > orch-deployed prometheus) so that users don't have to care what the orchestrator > does with monitoring (other then duplicating recorded metrics). See > https://prometheus.io/docs/prometheus/latest/federation/#hierarchical-federation > > I'd really like to encourage the orchestrator team to carefully think this > through. Monitoring is (at least for some users) a critical infrastructure > component with its own inherent complexity. I'm worried that just doing this in > a best-effort fashion and not offering an alternative path if going to weaken > the ceph ecosystem. > > > >> > - Let's teach ceph-daemon how to do this, so that you do 'ceph-daemon > >> > deploy --fsid ... --name prometheus.foo -i input.json'. ceph-daemon > >> > has the framework for opening firewall ports etc now... just add ports > >> > based on the daemon type. > >> > > >> > >> TBH, I'd keep the monitoring containers away from the ceph daemons. They > >> require different parameters, config files etc so why not keep them > >> separate and keep the ceph logic clean. This also allows us to change > >> monitoring without concerns over logic changes to normal ceph daemon > >> management. > > > >Okay, but mgr/ssh is still going to be wired up to deploy these. And to do > >so on a per-cluster, containerized basis... which means all of the infra > >in ceph-daemon will still be useful. It seems easiest to just add it > >there. > > > >Your points above seem to point toward simplifying the containers we > >deploy to just two containers, one that's one-per-cluster for > >prom+alertmanager+grafana, and one that's per-host for the node-exporter. > >But I think making it fit in nicely with the other ceph containers (e.g., > >/var/lib/ceph/$fsid/$thing) makes sense. Esp since we can just deploy > >these during bootstrap by default (unless some --external-prometheus is > >passed) and this all happens without the admin having to think about it. > > > >> > WDYT? > >> > > >> > > >> I'm sure a lot of the above has already been discussed at length with the > >> SuSE folks, so apologies for going over ground that you've already covered. > > > >Not yet! :) > > > >sage > >_______________________________________________ > >Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx > >To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx > > -- > Jan Fajerski > Senior Software Engineer Enterprise Storage > SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH > Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) > Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx > >
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
