Hi Howard, Have you made progress with addressing the comments? I think once points are addressed we can maybe start a vote?
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 12:39 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > 1. I would assume the path for StatsD (dogstatsd) would be for > deprecation - we will perhaps comment or mark it as deprecation - and > should follow the established (or usual?) process of feature deprecation of > Airflow, once the opentelemetry is in place. > > Yep. Deprecation should be. And maybe accompanied with a "statsd > open-telemetry exporter" ? I think eventually we should have just OTEL > stats and nothing else. The current "configurable" metrics class > should be fully replaced with "OTEL configurable" metrics. Same as > (but that's a much longer and uncertain path) logging configuration > should get replaced if/when OTEL logging lives to its promises. > > > 2. Airflow will provide its own list of 'instrumented metrics' out of > the box - with the list specified in its documentation so that users would > be aware of them. However, with opentelemetry, the users will also have the > ability to add their 'custom' metrics / traces / logs to be collected via > opentelemetry as needed. That option and how-to's should also be documented. > > Good point. Actually the nice thing is that adding new metrics could > then be done as part of task execution for example - so we should > indeed have some libraries/tools or maybe even operator's /task > interface should have some built-in capabilities and allow for > declarative ways of adding metrics (but this can be added as a > follow-up - it does not need to be described and hashed out yet IMHO - > but we can add it to the docs as "future improvement") . > > > 3. A little clarification - I believe there were two POC's - which at > the time during the first POC, it had lacked some of the features (e.g. > traces and logs). However, in the second POC, there is a stable release of > Traces, and beta release of logs, so things have been progressing. > Opentelemetry is highly evolving and many things do change and get added > relatively quickly. During my second POC (the one mentioned in the attached > PDF) I was able to validate that all of the 'key' features that we needed > to implement opentelemetry for airflow has been released and available. > > Yeah. I concur with that Howard wrote. What was there a few months > ago a little "shaky", becomes more and more solid as time passes. And > I also spoke with a few people who are involved in OpenTelemetry > standard and development (one of my friends is site-lead for Sumo > Logic Poland and they take active part in that effort and I just spoke > to him about it). Also AWS is very much vested in it as far as I > understand - I also spoke to Google and they are very much supporting > OTEL as industry standard. I think there is a firm industry backing > behind OTEL and there is no way it "won't progress" or "falter". This > is a little bit of a "leap of faith" that it will become fully > featured for our needs, but I think what is already there is "enough" > to justify the move and anything that comes out of Beta is a bonus. > Eventually if things will not go fast enough for us - we can also > actually contribute there on the "collection" level. It will likely > have a much better outcome than if we try to integrate airflow with > multiple services ourselves - we will just have to make sure things > get collected "well" - and then all the different services will more > likely than not write exporters for it. > > > 4. This is a debatable topic - and I believe those may not be a part of > the core airflow code base, but would suggest perhaps we could create a > 'contribution' repo which may maintain those third party assets (e.g. > Grafana dashboard, Datadog dashboard, etc.) that users may use and even > participate in maintaining it. > > Yeah. I think this is also an opportunity for someone who is > specializing in those or even let Grafana add it to their "portfolio". > I can imagine there might be some basic dashboards generated by > companies which do some kinds of integrations (and with an option of > "come to us when you want more customizability". While we won't be > able to endorse those, we can easily let it land in the "ecosystem" > page of ours. I think also we can easily reach out (for example to > Grafana to do it - in the case of Grafana, Myrle Krantz, ex Treasurer > from ASF who I know well is a Senior Manager in Grafana responsible > for Cloud team). > > > > 5. POC may not have all the changes, as the work was to 'prototype' and > answer questions like 'what if' when opentelemetry is in place. The > proposal actually has link to a GIT repo that contains the changes that > were done during the POC: > https://github.com/howardyoo/airflow/tree/opentelemetry-poc-1 . Since the > details of the changes would make the existing PDF even more subjected to > TL;DR, I linked this git branch for anyone interested in the changes to > take a look. I hope this would be sufficient. > > I think Elad is right that some more details need to "surface" from > the POC to AIP. While the changes are very little - they don't change > any flows or logic in Airflow, it's more to "selectively" add > collections and make sure common "Span" id is shared throughout the > code (which I think is the biggest change). > I think Howard, it might make sense to extract parts of the POC and > put them as an outline of changes to implement in the "AIP". > > The POC is more trace of what you've done, but I think simply > translating this into "this is what we need to do" for those who will > just read AIP is important. Our AIP's are much more "Technical" in > nature than most of the > > > > > 6. Yes, I agree - I will update the AIP proposal to make the scope more > clearer. Thanks for the feedback! > > Yeah. Adding "future improvements" and especially "This is what we are > not going to do and leave for later" is important part of every AIP. I > think it's sometimes much more important to state what we are NOT > going to vs. what we are going to do. > > > > > Howard > > > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 1:27 PM Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Howard! > >> Sorry for the delay, this was a long read. The PDF alone is 19 pages :) > >> looks very good! > >> > >> I have 6 questions/points to raise: > >> > >> 1. I'm not clear about what is to happen with StatsD . > >> It states "Make OpenTelemetry and StatsD optional and interchangeable." > >> But do we want to support both in the long run? > >> It doesn't specify if we are deprecating statsD along with completion > of this AIP. > >> > >> 2. regarding adding metrics. > >> Do we intend to let users define their own KPIs/metrics to be measured > or it will be a closed list set by Airflow? > >> > >> 3. The POC specifies it uses a feature of open-telemetry (add metrics) > which was not yet released. Do we know the timeline for the feature to be > released? > >> Can we vote on a plan to use something which is not yet publicly > available? > >> > >> 4. Are the Grafana dashboards / other dashboards to be part of the > Airflow core code base? > >> I wonder if this should be in a dedicated repo? > >> > >> 5. Could you please clarify in the AIP page what changes are required > to the Airflow code base? > >> Some of them appear in the PDF but I'm not sure if that is all of them? > >> > >> 6. The PDF has several open questions/ideas. > >> I think it would be best to add to the AIP a scope paragraph listing > what will be included in the first phase and what is left for other phases. > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 4:26 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Or maybe that people are so stunned by the beauty and usefulness of it > >>> that they cannot even say a word :) > >>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 11:37 PM Howard Yoo <howard...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > I think it may mean all is well, perhaps :-) > >>> > Howard > >>> > > >>> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 9:29 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Hello everyone, > >>> >> > >>> >> Would be great to get some comments and reviews - especially from > >>> >> those who are users and are doing monitoring. Howard made a lot of > >>> >> effort to show examples of how OTEL might help in this. > >>> >> > >>> >> Otherwise, is the silence sign that all is good ? > >>> >> > >>> >> J. > >>> >> > >>> >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:53 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> > And let me add to it - we laid some foundations for it with > Melodie > >>> >> > Ezeani - the Outreachy intern where we did some internal > integration > >>> >> > work that let us understand the challenges and state of > >>> >> > open-telemetry. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > I am super excited about what open-telemetry can bring to Airflow > - > >>> >> > both short term (in metrics and instrumentation) and longer term > - in > >>> >> > logging when logging is mature enough. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > The open-telemetry mov is at the heart of the principles we have - > >>> >> > making Airflow "modern" but at the same time delegating what's not > >>> >> > "core" to those who can do it better. Open Telemetry is precisely > >>> >> > about that, > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Howard particularly brought a great experience from using Open > >>> >> > Telemetry before and making some good judgements and POC on the > >>> >> > metrics produced by Airflow and how they can be useful from the > >>> >> > "maintainer value" side. I looked at it from the technical > integration > >>> >> > POV - and Melodie helped to validate some of the assumptions and > >>> >> > expose some of the technical challenges. > >>> >> > The composite result is good, but we are looking with Howard on > some > >>> >> > insightful comments and critique - especially from the users of > >>> >> > Airflow! > >>> >> > > >>> >> > I look forward to more cool stuff on Airflow! > >>> >> > > >>> >> > J. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 9:39 PM Howard Yoo <howard...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > Hi all, > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > I am pleased to announce the start of the discussion for the > new AIP draft that was recently been published: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/AIP-49+OpenTelemetry+Support+for+Apache+Airflow > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > Jarek Potuik and I have been discussing about this proposal > since early this year. During that time, we worked together on drafting > this proposal, as well as doing another round of mini-POC to refresh and > test on feasibility of OpenTelemetry on Apache Airflow. > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > As the POC was successful in terms of testing the OpenTelemetry > on Airflow, we would like to expand the discussion to a wider user > community here this mailing list to gather more consensus, comments, and > feedbacks regarding this AIP. > >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > Sincerely, > >>> >> > > Howard and Jarek >
