- 
                Notifications
    You must be signed in to change notification settings 
- Fork 576
MON-4031: Add prometheusOperatorConfig API #2481
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
          
     Open
      
      
            marioferh
  wants to merge
  3
  commits into
  openshift:master
  
    
      
        
          
  
    
      Choose a base branch
      
     
    
      
        
      
      
        
          
          
        
        
          
            
              
              
              
  
           
        
        
          
            
              
              
           
        
       
     
  
        
          
            
          
            
          
        
       
    
      
from
marioferh:prometheus_operator_config_api
  
      
      
   
  
    
  
  
  
 
  
      
    base: master
Could not load branches
            
              
  
    Branch not found: {{ refName }}
  
            
                
      Loading
              
            Could not load tags
            
            
              Nothing to show
            
              
  
            
                
      Loading
              
            Are you sure you want to change the base?
            Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
            and old review comments may become outdated.
          
          
  
     Open
                    Changes from all commits
      Commits
    
    
            Show all changes
          
          
            3 commits
          
        
        Select commit
          Hold shift + click to select a range
      
      
    File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
          Failed to load comments.   
        
        
          
      Loading
        
  Jump to
        
          Jump to file
        
      
      
          Failed to load files.   
        
        
          
      Loading
        
  Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
  
    
      This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
      Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
    
  
  
    
              
  
    
      This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
      Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
    
  
  
    
              
      
      Oops, something went wrong.
        
    
  
  Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
  This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
  Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
  Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
  Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
  Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
  Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
  You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
  Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
  This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
  Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
  Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
  Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
  Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
  
    
  
    
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How does this configuration relate to the configuration proposed in #2463?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is Prometheus Operator, the other one is Prometheus config. Of course they are related but they have different configs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the Prometheus config used by the PrometheusOperator?
Would it make sense to co-locate the configurations under a top-level
prometheusfield?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not directly . Prometheus Config is use by Prometheus. PrometheusOperator manages Prometheus instances, a
Alertmanagare, etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So what configures the Prometheus instances created by the Prometheus Operator to use the Prometheus Config?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
CMO takes PrometheusK8sConfing configmap and create a CR.
PrometheosOperator takes that CR and configure Prometheus.
I can understand your idea but PrometheusOperator manages all these components and I it's not a good idea to have all fields inside PrometheusOperator.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So to make sure I am following along, the CMO will:
PrometheusOperatorConfigPrometheusCRs using the configurations provided inPrometheusK8sConfig. Does this apply to all Prometheus CRs?While these are two distinct things, they are both inherently related to how the CMO handles prometheus configuration on the cluster.
I'm not suggesting that we put all the fields under
PrometheusOperatorConfig, I'm suggesting we use a shared parent field namedprometheusthat can have sibling fields for configuring the Prometheus Operator itself and, separately, configuring the individual Prometheus instance configurations. This way, if you want to add additional configuration options related to prometheus in the future, you don't have to add anotherPrometheus*field.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Correct
But they are different things, the are related but from my point of view and how CMO works it makes no sense.
https://github.com/prometheus-operator/prometheus-operator
https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus
@danielmellado @simonpasquier any thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would keep @marioferh approach. While I understand @everettraven concern about API organization, the reality is that prometheusOperatorConfig and prometheusK8sConfig are solving different problems and IMHO having them under a shared parent would actually make things more confusing.
Think about it from an operator's perspective: when you're configuring prometheusOperatorConfig, you're basically saying "how should we deploy and run the Prometheus Operator pods themselves" - stuff like resource limits, node scheduling, log levels. But when you're dealing with prometheusK8sConfig, you're configuring "what should the actual Prometheus servers do" - scraping rules, storage, retention policies, etc. Again, I think mixing them together would be confusing.
Plus, we already have a working pattern with alertmanagerConfig and metricsServerConfig that users understand. Why break that consistency for a theoretical future problem?
If we do end up with too many prometheus fields later, I'm totally happy to revisit the structure, but I think that for now the separation actually makes the API clearer and more intuitive.
@simonpasquier wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you go with a distributed field approach, you have to maintain that essentially forever or go through a pretty painful process to refine the structure once you've promoted the API to
v1.I'm not sold that doing something like:
breaks that consistency, but if you folks feel strongly that users will have a better experience with multiple
prometheus*Configfields I won't block it.If you don't think you'll ever have more than the two fields for the operator and servers respectively, this probably isn't that big of a deal.
I think the example above still considers this perspective and difference of field responsibilities. Except now you have a dedicated umbrella field that captures everything related to the configuration of the "Prometheus stack" (operator and the servers).
Again, if you folks feel strongly that this doesn't make sense and users would have a better experience with the currently implemented approach I won't stop it from being done, but it must be clear to users what each
prometheus*Configfield is responsible for and when they should/should not be specifying the fields.