Skip to content
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

Need approval to remove EFK #3352

Closed
woopstar opened this issue Sep 19, 2018 · 12 comments
Closed

Need approval to remove EFK #3352

woopstar opened this issue Sep 19, 2018 · 12 comments

Comments

@woopstar
Copy link
Member

Neeed approval to remove the EFK stack from Kubespray.

@ant31
@mattymo
@Atoms
@chadswen
@rsmitty
@bogdando
@bradbeam
@riverzhang
@holser
@Smana
@mirwan

@Atoms
Copy link
Member

Atoms commented Sep 19, 2018

efk component issues:
#3332
#3323
#3322
#2842
#2395

Same as here, proposal to remove this
#3181

From my side i approve removing efk, and making some note in README that all applications should be installed using helm, kubespray is about cluster itself and crutual parts of it.

@ant31
Copy link
Contributor

ant31 commented Sep 19, 2018

I approve ! :)

@ant31
Copy link
Contributor

ant31 commented Sep 19, 2018

In short, if it was not that complex I would be ok to leave it as a kubespray addons. Logs manager could be seen as a core components of a cluster.
But the E[LF]K stack is too complex, has too many knobs and we won't be able to provide serious(production-grade) deployment from kubespray.

+1 to remove it.

@woopstar
Copy link
Member Author

Maybe we should provide a list of helm charts / commands in some sort of contrib, to show people how to install EFK with helm instead? So we only maintain a list of helm charts if so ?

@Atoms
Copy link
Member

Atoms commented Sep 19, 2018

i think documentation about helm charts would be sufficient

@desaintmartin
Copy link
Contributor

A recommendation or a list of recommendations in the doc would be helpful.
Please note that there is no "one-click" way to install and manage an EFK configured for kubernetes from the official helm charts right now. I was suggesting previously to wait for it before removing EFK from kubespray.

@riverzhang
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@chadswen
Copy link
Member

Remove it. Thanks!

@mirwan
Copy link
Contributor

mirwan commented Sep 20, 2018

+1 for removing efk

@desaintmartin
Copy link
Contributor

Although I actually like the idea of focusing on core and removing all of this, I think it has been done too quickly.

From the outside, it feels like kubespray does not care about its users. I know it is not true, but at least a few lines of documentation stating the breaking changes AND giving some clue about how to install an EFK would be nice. I personally don't care as I know how to do the switch, but I don't think newcomers would think kubespray as being "stable" seeing this.

@woopstar
Copy link
Member Author

Although I actually like the idea of focusing on core and removing all of this, I think it has been done too quickly.

From the outside, it feels like kubespray does not care about its users. I know it is not true, but at least a few lines of documentation stating the breaking changes AND giving some clue about how to install an EFK would be nice. I personally don't care as I know how to do the switch, but I don't think newcomers would think kubespray as being "stable" seeing this.

I could not disagree more. EFK is still available in the latest release. The discussion about removing EFK has been up for very long. Yesterday it was discussed in our Slack channel again.
We also came up with, that we indeed should add some information on how to use HELM. But the basic idea of Kubespray is to provide a production ready cluster, not with addition addons. It is up to the individual user to add the needed addons, while it is also a big hassle for us to maintain all those addons.

So the first step here was/is to remove EFK from upstream. Next step must be to include various docs / contrib for people that like to use EFK etc.

@desaintmartin
Copy link
Contributor

Then we agree in this case. All I'm telling is "tell the users", but if it is a planned next step then I'm happy with it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants