The Client type is already exposed, but can't be used without the config for it
also being exposed. Using the remote.Client from other programs is useful to do
full end-to-end tests of Prometheus's remote protocol against adapter
implementations.
This can happen in the situation where the system scales up the number of shards massively (to deal with some backlog), then scales it down again as the number of samples sent during the time period is less than the number received.
* 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
Each remote write endpoint gets its own set of relabeling rules.
This is based on the (yet-to-be-merged)
https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/pull/2419, which removes legacy
remote write implementations.
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.
* Add config, HTTP Basic Auth and TLS support to the generic write path.
- Move generic write path configuration to the config file
- Factor out config.TLSConfig -> tlf.Config translation
- Support TLSConfig for generic remote storage
- Rename Run to Start, and make it non-blocking.
- Dedupe code in httputil for TLS config.
- Make remote queue metrics global.
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.
By splitting the single queue into multiple queues and flushing each individual queue in serially (and all queues in parallel), we can guarantee to preserve the order of timestampsin samples sent to downstream systems.
- 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
This uses a new proto format, with scope for multiple samples per
timeseries in future. This will allow users to pump samples out to
whatever they like without having to change the core Prometheus code.
There's also an example receiver to save users figuring out the
boilerplate themselves.
