* update promlog to latest version
Signed-off-by: Alex Yu <yu.alex96@gmail.com>
* Update api tests, fix main setup
Signed-off-by: Alex Yu <yu.alex96@gmail.com>
* tidy go.sum
Signed-off-by: Alex Yu <yu.alex96@gmail.com>
* revendor prometheus/common
Signed-off-by: Alex Yu <yu.alex96@gmail.com>
* only initialize config; use kingpin for remote_storage_adapter
Signed-off-by: Alex Yu <yu.alex96@gmail.com>
* actually parse the flags
Signed-off-by: Alex Yu <yu.alex96@gmail.com>
* clean up imports
Signed-off-by: Alex Yu <yu.alex96@gmail.com>
* *: remove use of golang.org/x/net/context
Signed-off-by: Simon Pasquier <spasquie@redhat.com>
* scrape: fix TestTargetScrapeScrapeCancel
Signed-off-by: Simon Pasquier <spasquie@redhat.com>
There are many more (mostly finalizers like Close/Stop/etc.), but most of
the others seemed like one couldn't do much about them anyway.
Signed-off-by: Julius Volz <julius.volz@gmail.com>
* Compress remote storage requests and responses with unframed/raw snappy, for compatibility with other languages.
* Remove backwards compatibility code from remote_storage_adapter, update example_write_adapter
* Add /documentation/examples/remote_storage/example_write_adapter/example_writer_adapter to .gitignore
This removes legacy support for specific remote storage systems in favor
of only offering the generic remote write protocol. An example bridge
application that translates from the generic protocol to each of those
legacy backends is still provided at:
documentation/examples/remote_storage/remote_storage_bridge
See also https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/issues/10
The next step in the plan is to re-add support for multiple remote
storages.
In preparation for removing specific remote storage implementations,
this offers an example of how to achieve the same in a separate process.
Rather than having three separate bridges for OpenTSDB, InfluxDB, and
Graphite, I decided to support all in one binary.
For now, this is in the example documenation directory, but perhaps we
will want to make a first-class project / repository out of it.
My aim is to support the new grpc generic write path in Frankenstein. On the surface this seems easy - however I've hit a number of problems that make me think it might be better to not use grpc just yet.
The explanation of the problems requires a little background. At weave, traffic to frankenstein need to go through a couple of services first, for SSL and to be authenticated. So traffic goes:
internet -> frontend -> authfe -> frankenstein
- The frontend is Nginx, and adds/removes SSL. Its done this way for legacy reasons, so the certs can be managed in one place, although eventually we imagine we'll merge it with authfe. All traffic from frontend is sent to authfe.
- Authfe checks the auth tokens / cookie etc and then picks the service to forward the RPC to.
- Frankenstein accepts the reads and does the right thing with them.
First problem I hit was Nginx won't proxy http2 requests - it can accept them, but all calls downstream are http1 (see https://trac.nginx.org/nginx/ticket/923). This wasn't such a big deal, so it now looks like:
internet --(grpc/http2)--> frontend --(grpc/http1)--> authfe --(grpc/http1)--> frankenstein
Next problem was golang grpc server won't accept http1 requests (see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/grpc-io/JnjCYGPMUms). It is possible to link a grpc server in with a normal go http mux, as long as the mux server is serving over SSL, as the golang http client & server won't do http2 over anything other than an SSL connection. This would require making all our service to service comms SSL. So I had a go a writing a grpc http1 server, and got pretty far. But is was a bit of a mess.
So finally I thought I'd make a separate grpc frontend for this, running in parallel with the frontend/authfe combo on a different port - and first up I'd need a grpc reverse proxy. Ideally we'd have some nice, generic reverse proxy that only knew about a map from service names -> downstream service, and didn't need to decode & re-encode every request as it went through. It seems like this can't be done with golang's grpc library - see https://github.com/mwitkow/grpc-proxy/issues/1.
And then I was surprised to find you can't do grpc from browsers! See http://www.grpc.io/faq/ - not important to us, but I'm starting to question why we decided to use grpc in the first place?
It would seem we could have most of the benefits of grpc with protos over HTTP, and this wouldn't preclude moving to grpc when its a bit more mature? In fact, the grcp FAQ even admits as much:
> Why is gRPC better than any binary blob over HTTP/2?
> This is largely what gRPC is on the wire.
- fold metric name into labels
- return initialization errors back to main
- add snappy compression
- better context handling
- pre-allocation of labels
- remove generic naming
- other cleanups
