Skip to content

Split apiserver availability rule groups #1032

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

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

SuperQ
Copy link
Contributor

@SuperQ SuperQ commented Mar 4, 2025

Split the apiserver availability rules into two rule groups for async processing. This makes the rule groups less heavy without greatly impacting the data quality.

  • Fist group for shorter pre-aggregations.
  • Second group for longer SLI calculations.

Some other improvements:

  • Eliminate the code rule split. Since these rules are sequential in one rule group it doesn't really improve performance. It also confuses the Prometheus Operator admission controller. Removing the regexp match also reduces the load on Prometheus.
  • Remove the verb regexp match so we also eliminate this regexp match. This also allows for all verbs to be included in this aggregation.

Split the apiserver availability rules into two rule groups for async
processing. This makes the rule groups less heavy without greatly
impacting the data quality.
* Fist group for shorter pre-aggregations.
* Second group for longer SLI calculations.

Some other improvements:
* Eliminate the `code` rule split. Since these rules are sequential in
  one rule group it doesn't really improve performance. It also confuses
  the Prometheus Operator admission controller. Removing the regexp
  match also reduces the load on Prometheus.
* Remove the `verb` regexp match so we also eliminate this regexp match.
  This also allows for all verbs to be included in this aggregation.

Signed-off-by: SuperQ <[email protected]>
@SuperQ SuperQ requested review from povilasv and skl as code owners March 4, 2025 13:02
@SuperQ
Copy link
Contributor Author

SuperQ commented Mar 4, 2025

👓 @metalmatze

@SuperQ SuperQ marked this pull request as draft March 4, 2025 13:18
@skl
Copy link
Collaborator

skl commented Mar 10, 2025

@SuperQ I noticed you marked the PR as draft, is there more work you're considering here?

@SuperQ
Copy link
Contributor Author

SuperQ commented Mar 10, 2025

I had some issues trying to load the rendered output into our cluster, so I made it draft in case there was a mistake here.

I'm still debugging why it's not loading for us.

@skl
Copy link
Collaborator

skl commented Mar 10, 2025

Feel free to post the error here in case you'd like a second set of eyes! 😄

Copy link

This PR has been automatically marked as stale because it has not
had any activity in the past 30 days.

The next time this stale check runs, the stale label will be
removed if there is new activity. The issue will be closed in 7
days if there is no new activity.

Thank you for your contributions!

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Apr 10, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants