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

Restore tenant configuration for Loki forwarder. #842

Merged

Conversation

alanconway
Copy link
Contributor

This configuration will not be required for our default Loki instance, but may be required for custom Loki instances.

/cc @periklis
/assign @jcantrill

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot requested a review from periklis July 21, 2021 12:21
@alanconway alanconway force-pushed the forward-to-loki-restore-tenant branch 2 times, most recently from a5141ff to f62057c Compare July 21, 2021 12:22
@@ -148,6 +148,12 @@ The following optional output fields are Loki-specific:
Example: `kubernetes.labels.foo` => `kubernetes_labels_foo`.\
**Note**: `kubernetes.host` is *always* be included, even if not requested.
It is required to ensure ordered label streams.
- `tenantKey`: (string, default=`"kubernetes.namespaceName"`) \
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We don't provide a default for in-cluster.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In addition do we really want to define as tenant key a label key or simply leave it as arbitrary data?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A fixed tenant ID limits us to static tenants pre-defined by the log admin based on input filters. This has turned out to be inadequate for other cases (JSON, cloudwatch groups etc.), where the logging system needs to respond to new label values or new namespaces appearing in the cluster without a manual re-config each time. I think the same applies to tenants - you can't implement "namespace as tenant" without it unless you know all your namespaces in advance.

@alanconway alanconway force-pushed the forward-to-loki-restore-tenant branch 2 times, most recently from 0a533bf to 63d9314 Compare July 22, 2021 20:07
@alanconway alanconway force-pushed the forward-to-loki-restore-tenant branch 2 times, most recently from 7f74862 to 2ada059 Compare August 3, 2021 12:55
@alanconway
Copy link
Contributor Author

@periklis @jcantrill can I get an LGTM here? This brings the enhancement proposal up to date with the code that merged to the CLO.

This configuration will not be required for our default Loki instance,
but may be required for custom Loki instances.
@alanconway alanconway force-pushed the forward-to-loki-restore-tenant branch from 2ada059 to e147186 Compare August 5, 2021 20:31
@jcantrill
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 5, 2021
@jcantrill
Copy link
Contributor

/approve

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Aug 6, 2021

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jcantrill

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 6, 2021
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot merged commit f072fb6 into openshift:master Aug 6, 2021
@alanconway alanconway deleted the forward-to-loki-restore-tenant branch September 14, 2021 17:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants