|
| 1 | += Manage Operator Managed PrometheusRules |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +== Problem |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +OpenShift operators manage their PrometheusRules (and alerts), we can't alter their definition. |
| 6 | +The current solution is to find the upstream rules in the source repositories, copy those rules, label alerts we see as useful with `syn=true`, and silence alerts without that label. |
| 7 | +This is a manual process, as the source location may change with every change in the upstream repository. |
| 8 | +Some rules exist only embedded in Go code. |
| 9 | +Rollout of new PrometheusRules must be coordinated with the corresponding change in the operator. |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +=== Goals |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +* Automatically copy and label the operator managed PrometheusRules |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +== Proposals |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +=== Option 1: Use a policy tool |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | +We could evaluate a policy tool that helps us meet our requirements. |
| 20 | +Such a tool could also help with other tasks we may want to automate. |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +The policy tools we've evaluated in the past, like Kyverno, have a lot of features that we don't need. |
| 23 | +Those features make the tool more complex to use and run than necessary. |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | +=== Option 2: Create own dedicated controller |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +We can create our own dedicated operator that watches for changes in OpenShift operator managed PrometheusRules and dynamically copy/update and label these alerts. |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | +Implementing a dedicated operator for managing these PrometheusRules would be straightforward. |
| 30 | +We already implemented other controller/operator in situations where we run into limitations of existing tools. |
| 31 | + |
| 32 | +=== Option 3: Create more generalized copy/patch operator |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +We've got quite a few other edge-cases where we need to copy or patch resources based on other resources. |
| 35 | +We use a mix of custom scripts, cron jobs, controllers and other tools to solve those problems. |
| 36 | +We could implement a more generalized copy/patch operator that could be used for other resources as well. |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +This would allow us to replace multiple tools and lower our operational overhead tracking and rolling out upstream changes of those tools. |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +By using Jsonnet as a templating engine we can create a very powerful and flexible tool that can be used for many different use-cases. |
| 41 | + |
| 42 | +=== Option 4: Use Crossplane Compositions |
| 43 | + |
| 44 | +[quote, 'https://docs.crossplane.io/v1.19/concepts/compositions/[Crossplane documentation]'] |
| 45 | +---- |
| 46 | +Compositions are a template for creating multiple managed resources as a single object. |
| 47 | +---- |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +We could use Crossplane Compositions to create a template for creating PrometheusRules. |
| 50 | + |
| 51 | +Composition functions allow Go code to be executed to generate resources. |
| 52 | +This would allow us templating in a fully fledged programming language. |
| 53 | +Crossplane was primarily designed to manage external resources. |
| 54 | +It's a CNCF project and moved to `Incubating` status in 2021. |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +Using Crossplane comes with a huge overhead in both learning and operational costs. |
| 57 | +We would need to learn a complex new framework and tooling. |
| 58 | +Since functions need to be compiled and deployed the iteration cycle is much slower and more complex to debug. |
| 59 | +Composition functions don't seem to always be enough and `provider-kubernetes` is also required. |
| 60 | +We're not sure how well Crossplane handles resources primarily managed by an external party and how well server-side apply works. |
| 61 | + |
| 62 | +While we'd use Go for functions, there's still an amount of YAML that needs to be written. |
| 63 | +This removes the most positive aspect of having the full Go testing and linting toolchain available. |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +VSHNs flagship project, Servala, also uses Crossplane behind the scenes. |
| 66 | +Servala is installed on almost every cluster and we'd most likely need to solve issues of interdependencies between the two projects. |
| 67 | + |
| 68 | +Crossplane constantly fights with performance issues and the complexity of the project. |
| 69 | +See https://github.com/crossplane-contrib/provider-kubernetes/issues/316[Crossplane issue 316] for an example. |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | +https://vshnwiki.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/VST/pages/757635/Crossplane+Review[Internal reviews] of Crossplane also note the complexity of compositions, the steep learning curve, and the issues with debugging. |
| 72 | +It's a https://kb.vshn.ch/app-catalog/adr/0021-composition-function-error-handling.html[footgun] that's loaded and with the safety off. |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | +== Decision |
| 75 | + |
| 76 | +We decided to implement our own generalized copy/patch operator. |
| 77 | + |
| 78 | +== Rationale |
| 79 | + |
| 80 | +By implementing our own generalized copy/patch operator we can adapt better to changes in the upstream PrometheusRules. |
| 81 | + |
| 82 | +Creating or patching resources based on other resources is an issue we encounter constantly. |
| 83 | +We already have tools in place to solve those problems, but all of them address a special case which could be unified in a more general approach. |
| 84 | +This would allow us to replace multiple tools and lower our operational overhead tracking and rolling out upstream changes of those tools. |
0 commit comments