-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 190
[distributions/gateway] add gateway distribution #845
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i still don't quite get why such a distribution is needed. couldn't this be handled by a user-owned config.yaml and otelcol-contrib? albeit with a bigger footprint of course with more components. Also, I think this kind of conflicts with the gateway deployment pattern described in the docs.
some other points:
- please adjust the goreleaser configure.go file so that i generates your intended goreleaser.yaml config
- please add the new distro to the pipeline configs under .github/workflows
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
you don't need to split the goreleaser files. that is only necessary for otelcol-contrib for nightly testing purposes, but this will be handled by configure.go anyways when you change it
We talked about this during the SIG Collector, and we seem to agree that the name "gateway" does not match what we have in the manifest here. The need for this specific distribution isn't also either very clear. |
Co-authored-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Moritz Wiesinger <[email protected]>
I have updated the contents of the gateway distribution to match the expectations. I can come discuss this at a SIG meeting if time allows. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm on the fence whether this distribution should be produced by the project. The choice of components seems to make some sense ("take everything that is not actively scraping"), but it's probably still a lot for many use cases.
Would this distro be a good fit to use in another OpenTelemetry project, for example as the collector image in one of the OTel Helm charts?
- gomod: github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib/extension/storage/redisstorageextension v0.120.1 | ||
- gomod: github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib/extension/sumologicextension v0.120.1 | ||
|
||
exporters: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wouldn't the Load Balancing exporter fit here as well?
- gomod: github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib/processor/tailsamplingprocessor v0.120.1 | ||
- gomod: github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-collector-contrib/processor/transformprocessor v0.120.1 | ||
|
||
receivers: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is the Syslog receiver not included?
I could see this distribution being useful if it is significantly slimmer than otelcol-contrib. If we get a successful CI Binaries build run I want to compare binary size. I am wary in general of adding more artifacts to the release that already produces 450+ artifacts. |
This is a new distribution that targets the use case of deploying the collector as a gateway.
In this scenario, the collector is completely passive and listens for traffic in various protocols, and exports to OTLP.
More information in the README of the distribution for review.
Fixes #834