Re: [Hawkular-dev] OpenShift Deployment

Clarification: I'm not suggesting an Assemble-Your-Own solution whereby the users independently install Prometheus then Hawkular Services. Rather what I'm proposing is somewhat analogous to Fedora model. We want to be the community leader in Prometheus on OpenShift and on top of that our expertise in Middleware monitoring brings values to Middleware users by providing our Prometheus++ solution (core Prometheus + Middleware monitoring enhancement). Let me flip that inside out if I may. If someone wants to contribute to P8S other than Middleware monitoring, then they will have to go to a different project. With that I feel we may be missing a huge opportunity here. A large community of P8s users will go elsewhere to contribute. We'll be on our own island. I'm bringing up the sidecar approach because naturally it imposes loose-coupling between P8s and HS even when the two are in the same pod. Viet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Wringe" <mwringe(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Discussions around Hawkular development" <hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 6:09:34 AM Subject: Re: [Hawkular-dev] OpenShift Deployment On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Viet Nguyen < vnguyen(a)redhat.com > wrote: I believe the 'sidecar' container concept is more used for when you have a main container and then a small container to add in some functionality (eg auth proxy, metric agent, etc) In our case it would just be a pod with two containers which are tightly coupled. For Hawkular Services, we will have our own Prometheus which is private to our needs. Someone will not be able to use our pod and optionally only use Prometheus from it. We are not entertaining this idea and conceptually its closer to having Hawkular Services as the main container and p8s as the side car container. If someone wants middleware monitoring, they have to use our pod with Hawkular Services and p8s. Its important that we control how our own p8s instance works and to prevent someone from modifying it to their own purposes (it would be too difficult to handle all the different scenarios here). If someone wants p8s for something other than middleware monitoring, then they will have to use a different p8s pod. [1] more on "sidecar" containers http://blog.kubernetes.io/2015/06/the-distributed-system-toolkit-patterns... Viet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Wringe" < mwringe(a)redhat.com > To: "Discussions around Hawkular development" < hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 7:38:50 AM Subject: [Hawkular-dev] OpenShift Deployment With the changes that are now going to include Prometheus, how do we want to deploy this in OpenShift? We can have a few options: ALL-IN-ONE CONTAINER We put both Hawkular Services and Prometheus in the same container. Pros: - easy to deploy in plain docker (but this doesn't appear to be a usecase we are targetting anyways) - shares the same network connection (even localhost) and ip address (eg but both services are on the different ports). - Does't require any special wiring of components. - Can share the same volume mount - version of components can't get out of sync. Cons: - workflow doesn't work nicely. Docker containers are meant to only run a single application and running two can cause problems. Eg lifecycle events would become tricky and require some hacks to get around things. - can't independently deploy things - can't reuse or share any existing Prometheus docker containers. ALL-IN-ONE POD Hawkular Services and Prometheus are in their own containers, but they are both deployed within the same pod. Pros: - shares the same network connection. - bound to the same machine (useful if sharing the same hostpath pv) and don' need to worry about external network configurations (eg firewalls between OpenShift nodes) - pvs can be shared or separate. - lifecycle events will work properly. Cons: - lifecycle hooks will mean that both containers will have to pass before either one will enter the ready state. So if Prometheus is failing for some reason, Hawkular Services will not be available under the service. - cannot independently update one container. If we need to deploy a new container we will need to bring down the whole pod. - are stuck with a 1:1 ratio between Hawkular Services and Prometheus SEPARATE PODS Hawkular Services and Prometheus have their own separate pods. Pros: - can independently run components and each component has its own separate lifecycle - if in the future we want to cluster Hawkular Services. this will make it a lot easier and will also allow for running an n:m ratio between Hawkular Services and Prometheus - probably the more 'correct' way to deploy things as we don't have a strong requirement for Hawkular Services and Prometheus to run together. Cons: - more complex wiring. We will need to have extra services and routes created to handle this. This mean more things running and more chances for things to go wrong. Also more things to configure - reusing a PV between Hawkular Services and Prometheus could be more challenging (especially if we are using hostpath pvs). Updating the Prometheus scrape endpoint may require a new component and container.